PDA

View Full Version : Brian Westbrook to Visit Wednesday


hockeygoalie29
05-11-2010, 10:56 AM
Per Adam Schefter (http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter/status/13795204359)

If he signs, that would be 4 pro bowl running backs on the roster at the same time. The connection with McNabb is obvious and he would be a good fit for Shanahan's offense but you would have to believe one of the "Pro Bowl Trio" would get cut to make room. I also wonder how much longer his knees and ankles will hold up.

RedskinsDave
05-11-2010, 10:57 AM
4 former pro bowlers.

hockeygoalie29
05-11-2010, 11:00 AM
4 former pro bowlers.

I'll set the over/under on how many of them ever make it again at 1.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 11:38 AM
Just what this team needs, another beat up former pro bowl RB. This is rebuilding?

dj_stouty
05-11-2010, 11:44 AM
I'll set the over/under on how many of them ever make it again at 1.

I'll take the under. They will all be sharing the load and none of them will even have a shot at 1,500 rushing yards. Plus, the NFC is well stocked at RB with guys like Peterson, Turner, Gore, Jackson, DeAngelo...etc.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 11:44 AM
Sources tell Chris Mortensen (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5180302)

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 11:45 AM
I swear I just looked for this. Sorry, please merge

Red Bear
05-11-2010, 11:48 AM
Just what this team needs, another beat up former pro bowl RB. This is rebuilding?

this isnt rebuilding, this is about filling holes on the roster and creating competition, and thats IF we sign him. as of now were just taking a look at him, nothing wrong with that.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 11:48 AM
This is rebuilding?

This is getting through the 2010 season. Unfortunately it's just about impossible to rebuild every position on a football team in one off-season.

dj_stouty
05-11-2010, 11:50 AM
Seriously...having Portis, LJ, Fast Willie and Westbrook on the same roster is a bit of a joke.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 11:56 AM
I have no problem signing him, but not as a Rb. Play him as a slot WR/returner.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 11:58 AM
Seriously...having Portis, LJ, Fast Willie and Westbrook on the same roster is a bit of a joke.

More of a joke than having '02 Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell or Mike Anderson carrying the ball?

This is what Shanahan does. He just plugs whomever in the backfield and gets the job done. As long as these guys are cheap, who cares what their names are?

Skinreds
05-11-2010, 12:08 PM
More of a joke than having '02 Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell or Mike Anderson carrying the ball?

This is what Shanahan does. He just plugs whomever in the backfield and gets the job done. As long as these guys are cheap, who cares what their names are?

+1 and like akh said, we can play him in the slot as well.

dj_stouty
05-11-2010, 12:13 PM
More of a joke than having '02 Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell or Mike Anderson carrying the ball? This is what Shanahan does. He just plugs whomever in the backfield and gets the job done. As long as these guys are cheap, who cares what their names are?

The "names" in our backfield are past their primes and durability is a questionmark for all of them. Adding Westbrook to the mix just gives us another guy to rotate for the few games before he gets hurt. I guess we can hope they all take separate turns getting hurt? lol. I wouldn't mind seeing some youth and potential added to the final roster instead of the PB roster from 2006/2007.

That being said...I don't see Westbrook making this roster. I put the chances at less than 5%.

oldskinfan
05-11-2010, 12:17 PM
If you keep 4 RBs don't you need one of them to play Teams? And I don't mean returning kicks. I mean making tackles like Rock used to do.

Among Portis, Parker, Johnson and Westbrook (if we sign him) I can't see us keeping more than 3 of these guys (at most) on the opening day roster. If it fosters competition until then, fine.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 12:19 PM
The "names" in our backfield are past their primes and durability is a questionmark for all of them.

Which, I assume, is why there are three of them. As long as 1-2 are healthy all fall we'll be fine in the backfield.

Given the team's issues at other positions - OL, LB, S - I don't consider RB to be a problem. All you need is a warm body in Shanahan's scheme.

skin4ever
05-11-2010, 12:24 PM
Which, I assume, is why there are three of them. As long as 1-2 are healthy all fall we'll be fine in the backfield.
Given the team's issues at other positions - OL, LB, S - I don't consider RB to be a problem. All you need is a warm body in Shanahan's scheme.

My thoughts as well.

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 12:25 PM
This is getting through the 2010 season. Unfortunately it's just about impossible to rebuild every position on a football team in one off-season.

Personally I would settle for more than one or two... A rebuilding team does not ship two good picks in a deep deep draft off for a aging injury prone big name QB who so far appears to only be staying for this coming season... and at best might be here for a few years, and be over the hill or falling apart by the time the "rebuilding" actually bares fruit.

This is about big names Dan Snyders glittery money and the pie in the sky eyes this money has given Shanahan...

There isn't a lick of rebuilding going on here... with the exception of replacing a retired pro bowl LT with their highest draft pick.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 12:31 PM
does not ship two good picks in a deep deep draft off for a aging injury prone big name QB who so far appears to only be staying for this coming season

Have you seen the interviews with McNabb? That does not sound like a guy who is leaving after this season.

I agree that if McNabb's only here for a year it was a bad trade. But I'll be stunned if No. 5's not on the roster at least through 2012.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 12:34 PM
Personally I would settle for more than one or two... A rebuilding team does not ship two good picks in a deep deep draft off for a aging injury prone big name QB who so far appears to only be staying for this coming season

You do realize that the skins can't give McNabb an extension until late June at the earliest?

RedskinsDave
05-11-2010, 12:36 PM
Sheehan and Screech just made a good point about these guys all making the team. It is unlikely any will play special teams so don't expect to see more than 2 on the roster.

Farmer Ted
05-11-2010, 01:00 PM
Personally I would settle for more than one or two... A rebuilding team does not ship two good picks in a deep deep draft off for a aging injury prone big name QB who so far appears to only be staying for this coming season.

They didn't ship two good picks in a deep deep draft, they sent one. The second is a conditional pick in 2011.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
05-11-2010, 01:03 PM
Per Adam Schefter (http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter/status/13795204359)

If he signs, that would be 4 pro bowl running backs on the roster at the same time. The connection with McNabb is obvious and he would be a good fit for Shanahan's offense but you would have to believe one of the "Pro Bowl Trio" would get cut to make room. I also wonder how much longer his knees and ankles will hold up.

if that happens,i bet it would be parker.
they can have as many people as they want on the roster till after the 1st preseason game can't they?
why not cut galloway or one of the 15 lbs on the roster now?

smoak
05-11-2010, 01:19 PM
I would love this. It would stick in the crall of Philly fans and who cares which of the 4 (if any) make the club.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 01:29 PM
I would love this. It would stick in the crall of Philly fans and who cares which of the 4 (if any) make the club.

I wonder if Randall Cunningham's still got a few games left in the arm. I don't particularly care for our current back-up.

justinskins
05-11-2010, 01:40 PM
if that happens,i bet it would be parker.
they can have as many people as they want on the roster till after the 1st preseason game can't they?
why not cut galloway or one of the 15 lbs on the roster now?

I agree, Parker will be the first to go. I also think Larry Johnson will end up as the #2 back.

Although my gut tells me Portis will be the #1 guy, you have to wonder how he will look this year. He is coming off a similar situation as Westbrook, in that both missed a substantial portion of the season due to concussions. Both are getting old (although Westbrook is 2 years older I believe). Neither of them has the same form they used to (in particular, Portis doesn't break free for many big gains). I wouldn't rule out Westbrook giving Portis a run for his money in camp if he is signed.

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 01:44 PM
I realize that fans want to be optimistic and believe that this aging vet buy up is different than all the other aging vet buy ups in the past, and of course there's always a chance that they'll be right this time after being wrong for the past decade..
At one point I was right there too, "they got who? Oh wow the Skins are going to be great next season" so I know what I'm talking about first hand.

Ask yourself this why is a person with Shanhan's legendary knack for pulling really good RB's out of no where, so facinated by these splashy past their prime (for the most part) big name RB's?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the aura of Snyders money as a big shiny "easy button" is overshadowing his own better judgment. Combining big egos with lots of money is nothing new since Snyder bought the team.

I should be careful to point out that I'm not saying these guys can't make a positive impact at least the ones they keep, or that Westbrook wouldn't be a significant 3rd down threat... I am saying they've done this before and they aren't a 3rd down Back away from winning Superbowls and investing in these guys instead of youth is a poor long term strategy...

If they win a Superbowl in the next few years with McNabb at the helm I'll eat crow... If they don't then it was a failed strategy on top of years of the same failed strategies.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, Skins fans who do not learn from the past decade of off-season championships are likewise doomed to repeat them.

Hell I don't dislike any of these guys... Except maybe Larry Johnson, he seems like a D-bag, but I'm pretty ambivalent as long as he produces or doesn't make the cut... I am actually an admirer of McNabb's. I just don't care for the "definition of insanity" direction the team has held since Snyder bought the team.

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 01:51 PM
They didn't ship two good picks in a deep deep draft, they sent one. The second is a conditional pick in 2011.

you're right my mistake. :)

justinskins
05-11-2010, 01:52 PM
I realize that fans want to be optimistic and believe that this aging vet buy up is different than all the other aging vet buy ups in the past, and of course there's always a chance that they'll be right this time after being wrong for the past decade..
Another, less pessimistic way of looking at it is that the team was stuck with very few draft picks this year, and decided to look for veterans with good past performance as a stop-gap measure.

I'm worried too, and skeptical. I seriously doubt any of these players will be elite backs in the 2010 season. But we will be able to better evaluate the front office in the next couple offseasons, when they have more draft picks and have a real shot at making the team younger.

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 01:54 PM
You do realize that the skins can't give McNabb an extension until late June at the earliest?

No I sure didn't. I'm surprised this didn't come up in those early trade threads when people were expecting him to be extended right away and other people were saying relax it'll happen soon :)

Not too mention that I am still waiting to see that contract extension. I assume it will happen, but being that it has been secured yet, I can also assume that McNabb isn't being as cooperative as we would like.

Its been what, 6 days?

Oh hey looky there apparently I'm not the only one who didn't realize that... Shall we discuss the relative D-bag-iness of getting smug and sarcastic about something one only recently learned , while acting like one knew it all along?

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 01:59 PM
I realize that fans want to be optimistic and believe that this aging vet buy up is different than all the other aging vet buy ups in the past, and of course there's always a chance that they'll be right this time after being wrong for the past decade..
At one point I was right there too, "they got who? Oh wow the Skins are going to be great next season" so I know what I'm talking about first hand.

Ask yourself this why is a person with Shanhan's legendary knack for pulling really good RB's out of no where, so facinated by these splashy past their prime (for the most part) big name RB's?

The only conclusion I can draw is that the aura of Snyders money as a big shiny "easy button" is overshadowing his own better judgment. Combining big egos with lots of money is nothing new since Snyder bought the team.

I should be careful to point out that I'm not saying these guys can't make a positive impact at least the ones they keep, or that Westbrook wouldn't be a significant 3rd down threat... I am saying they've done this before and they aren't a 3rd down Back away from winning Superbowls and investing in these guys instead of youth is a poor long term strategy...

If they win a Superbowl in the next few years with McNabb at the helm I'll eat crow... If they don't then it was a failed strategy on top of years of the same failed strategies.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, Skins fans who do not learn from the past decade of off-season championships are likewise doomed to repeat them.

Hell I don't dislike any of these guys... Except maybe Larry Johnson, he seems like a D-bag, but I'm pretty ambivalent as long as he produces or doesn't make the cut... I am actually an admirer of McNabb's. I just don't care for the "definition of insanity" direction the team has held since Snyder bought the team.

The only move that the skins have made this offseason that could remotely fall into the characterization you want to make is McNabb, but he's not some vet on the downhill of his career. He had 3500 yards, 22 tds(versus 10 Ints) and a QB rating of over 95 in 14 games last year. Parker and Johnson are making a combined amount of about 4 million dollars next year, so the skins don't have much risk if they don't pan out(especially since Parker is a free agent after the season). As for the rest of the skins' acquisitions this offseason:
Adam Carriker: swapped 5ths and 7ths for him.
Howard Green: Vet minimum
Rex Grossman: 1 year deal(for not much)
Ryan Torain: 1 year deal(vet minimum)
Bobby Wade, Chris Draft, Greg Peterson, Antonio Bryant, Sean Ryan, Joey Galloway, Roydell Williams and Marques Haggans: all on minimum deals.
Artis Hicks: 3 years, 9 million. Expected to start at RT
Maake Kemoeatu: 2 years, 7 million
Phillip Buchanon: 1 year, 1.5 million


So, please to be a dear and explain how this offseason even remotely resembles any of the Snyderatto offseasons when they were spending like drunken sailors.


No I sure didn't. I'm surprised this didn't come up in those early trade threads when people were expecting him to be extended right away and other people were saying relax it'll happen soon :)

No one on the NFL beat even reported on it until recently.

Thanks for a non-comment comment on the subject btw.

Moe
05-11-2010, 02:00 PM
Ask yourself this why is a person with Shanhan's legendary knack for pulling really good RB's out of no where, so facinated by these splashy past their prime (for the most part) big name RB's?


Maybe because he's coached teams that lost multiple RB's, or even watched film on this team last year that was stuck with Rock and Gaither as the primary ball carriers? Let's not let the fact that there are three RB's named Torrian, Williams and Young with a combined 2 years of experience sitting in the wings get in the way either. I guess having 50% of your RB stable being young is an untenable ratio.

wr70beh
05-11-2010, 02:27 PM
I wonder if Randall Cunningham's still got a few games left in the arm. I don't particularly care for our current back-up.

I wonder if Jeff Garcia is available?

Kope
05-11-2010, 02:41 PM
So, please to be a dear and explain how this offseason even remotely resembles any of the Snyderatto offseasons when they were spending like drunken sailors.


Actually this off season reminds me more of the year Marty got here than anything else. I think this is the most positive I have been since Marty was Coach. I felt the direction the team was going was more true under Marty than Gibbs 2, however I was emotionally more forgiving for Gibbs.

I really like this offseason

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 02:43 PM
This is getting through the 2010 season. Unfortunately it's just about impossible to rebuild every position on a football team in one off-season.


Doesn't it seem to you the Redskins have been on this strategy of "just getting thru this season and let rebuilding take care of itself later" for the last decade?

True rebuilding usually involves having the patience to wait 3--4 years, the guts to be really bad while your young players develop, and the smarts to draft well. Like Ted Leonsis and George McPhee did with the Caps. Rebuilding is not about patching here and there with aging veterans who can not help you in the long term and who will do nothing more than give you a slight short term boost while they stand in the way of younger players.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 02:45 PM
Actually this off season reminds me more of the year Marty got here than anything else. I think this is the most positive I have been since Marty was Coach. I felt the direction the team was going was more true under Marty than Gibbs 2, however I was emotionally more forgiving for Gibbs.

I really like this offseason

I would have done a few things differently, but I can't complain about this offseason.

Doesn't it seem to you the Redskins have been on this strategy of "just getting thru this season and let rebuilding take care of itself later" for the last decade?

True rebuilding usually involves having the patience to wait 3--4 years, the guts to be really bad while your young players develop, and the smarts to draft well. Like Ted Leonsis and George McPhee did with the Caps. Rebuilding is not about patching here and there with aging veterans who can not help you in the long term and who will do nothing more than give you a slight short term boost while they stand in the way of younger players.

So, what would you have done differently, and please be specific.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 02:48 PM
this isnt rebuilding, this is about filling holes on the roster and creating competition, and thats IF we sign him. as of now were just taking a look at him, nothing wrong with that.


Filling holes with aging (or aged) veterans to what end? So we can go 6-10 instead of 4-12?

Sean36
05-11-2010, 02:50 PM
Doesn't it seem to you the Redskins have been on this strategy of "just getting thru this season and let rebuilding take care of itself later" for the last decade?

True rebuilding usually involves having the patience to wait 3--4 years, the guts to be really bad while your young players develop, and the smarts to draft well. Like Ted Leonsis and George McPhee did with the Caps. Rebuilding is not about patching here and there with aging veterans who can not help you in the long term and who will do nothing more than give you a slight short term boost while they stand in the way of younger players.

I have ''NO'' problem with the direction of this team.....Rex Ryan came into Jersey with no rebuilding plan & told the NFL that he was not going to kiss Belli Punk's rings.

P.S. Shanny isn't gonna kiss Jerry Jones or Coughlin's either.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 03:02 PM
You do realize that the skins can't give McNabb an extension until late June at the earliest?


I have read some posts to that effect, but I am not sure if it is correct information, because McNabb did not allude to such a bar when replying to a reporter question about signing an extension.

Let's assume McNabb may not sign an extension until at least late June, why didn't the front office get an agreement in principle from him to sign an extension at a later date before the trade was finalized? Such agreements may not be legally enforceable, but my understanding is that they are not that unusual and both sides will abide by them in fear of damaging future credibility.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Personally I would settle for more than one or two... A rebuilding team does not ship two good picks in a deep deep draft off for a aging injury prone big name QB who so far appears to only be staying for this coming season... and at best might be here for a few years, and be over the hill or falling apart by the time the "rebuilding" actually bares fruit.

This is about big names Dan Snyders glittery money and the pie in the sky eyes this money has given Shanahan...

There isn't a lick of rebuilding going on here... with the exception of replacing a retired pro bowl LT with their highest draft pick.


I agree. I am not getting good vibes about the new regime. When it sliced off a bunch of aging veterans a month or two ago, it appeared that Allenhan was serious about rebuilding. But, since then the new regime is adding aging players like there is no tomorrow. It looks suspiciously like the "patch here, patch there and let's just get thru this season" strategy of the past decade.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 03:10 PM
I have read some posts to that effect, but I am not sure if it is correct information, because McNabb did not allude to such a bar when replying to a reporter question about signing an extension.


I'll trust the cap expert who reported it over McNabb.

Let's assume McNabb may not sign an extension until at least late June, why didn't the front office get an agreement in principle from him to sign an extension at a later date before the trade was finalized? Such agreements may not be legally enforceable, but my understanding is that they are not that unusual and both sides will abide by them in fear of damaging future credibility.

I don't know the full terms of this rule, but its possible that they can't talk deal until one year after his last contract from Philly.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 03:13 PM
I agree. I am not getting good vibes about the new regime. When it sliced off a bunch of aging veterans a month or two ago, it appeared that Allenhan was serious about rebuilding. But, since then the new regime is adding aging players like there is no tomorrow. It looks suspiciously like the "patch here, patch there and let's just get thru this season" strategy of the past decade.

The only probable starters they've added since the beginning of the offseason have been:
Carriker(26 years old)
McNabb(33)
Trent Williams(22)
Maake Kemoeatu(31)
Artis Hicks(31)

Hardly some a bunch of "aging veterans."

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 03:15 PM
Doesn't it seem to you the Redskins have been on this strategy of "just getting thru this season and let rebuilding take care of itself later" for the last decade?

New coach. Real GM.

Like Ted Leonsis and George McPhee did with the Caps. Rebuilding is not about patching here and there with aging veterans who can not help you in the long term and who will do nothing more than give you a slight short term boost while they stand in the way of younger players.

Yeah, although about 80 percent of what happened with the Caps is the dumb luck of winning the lottery for Ovechkin. Hockey and basketball are different than football in that it just takes one guy to turn everything around.

As for the Skins, without a lot of draft picks I think this is about all you can expect this year.

Shanahanigans
05-11-2010, 03:22 PM
New coach. Real GM.
Yeah, although about 80 percent of what happened with the Caps is the dumb luck of winning the lottery for Ovechkin. Hockey and basketball are different than football in that it just takes one guy to turn everything around.

As for the Skins, without a lot of draft picks I think this is about all you can expect this year.

+1...as much as I respect the caps for doing it right, "winning" Ovechkin was obviously the difference maker.

And how are we supposed to rebuild this year with 4 draft picks? I certainly don't want a team full of undrafted free agents. I know we have to take chances somewhere, but we can only do so much.

As Akh pointed out, the ones who we signed and are serious about are great players. The only question mark is McNabb and I love him. I've always respected his game and I'm sure Shanallen felt the same way.

Rebuilding takes time, but it doesn't mean you can't plug holes with vets until you have a better draft situation. If we picked up crucial rookies in the drafts in the coming years, that could be considered a rebuild, but we don't have to just wave the white flag in the process. It would be nice to get the scheme together and make it interesting in the meantime.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 03:23 PM
I have ''NO'' problem with the direction of this team.....Rex Ryan came into Jersey with no rebuilding plan & told the NFL that he was not going to kiss Belli Punk's rings.

P.S. Shanny isn't gonna kiss Jerry Jones or Coughlin's either.


I have no problem with a team having a feisty attitude. But, having a feisty attitude and undertaking a rebuilding process are not mutually exclusive.

Rex Ryan got into the playoffs only because Indy decided to rest its starters in the penultimate regular season game. But, I will give Ryan credit for improving the Jets.

As to comparing the 2009 Jets with the 2010 Redskins, I think the Jets were not as old and not as bad as the current Wash team.

Ibleedburgundy
05-11-2010, 03:25 PM
Yeah, although about 80 percent of what happened with the Caps is the dumb luck of winning the lottery for Ovechkin. Hockey and basketball are different than football in that it just takes one guy to turn everything around.


That's true, getting Ovie was very lucky, but they also made some other nice moves that people freaked out about at the time. They traded away Robert Lang and that draft pick became Mike Green and other key players (I forget who). They also selected Nick Backstrom #5 overall but they had other choices they could have made. I know you know this because you follow Hockey.

McPhee systematically tore down the team and rebuilt it. It's not just Ovechkin, and they're still a paloff team without him IMO, just not a president's cup team. The Nats seem to be following suit. Seems to me the Redskins should do the same. Let's accumulate some draft picks for once. I don't care if they are 2012. I'm pretty sure young talent will still be an attribute 2 years from now.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 04:55 PM
That's true, getting Ovie was very lucky, but they also made some other nice moves that people freaked out about at the time. They traded away Robert Lang and that draft pick became Mike Green and other key players (I forget who). They also selected Nick Backstrom #5 overall but they had other choices they could have made. I know you know this because you follow Hockey.

McPhee systematically tore down the team and rebuilt it. It's not just Ovechkin, and they're still a paloff team without him IMO, just not a president's cup team. The Nats seem to be following suit. Seems to me the Redskins should do the same. Let's accumulate some draft picks for once. I don't care if they are 2012. I'm pretty sure young talent will still be an attribute 2 years from now.


Was it Tomas Fleischmann the Caps also got from Detroit in the Robert Lang deal?

Even though there are obvious differences between hockey and football, I think you are absolutely right that the principle is the same when it comes to rebuilding from the ground up. The Caps endured 3-4 really bad years, but the payoff was huge. They got lucky on the lottery for Ovechkin, but McPhee also had some outstanding draft selections (Backstrom, Green, Semin, Laich, Varlamov, Schultz, Carlson, etc). The Caps were the victims of a really hot goalie this year, but they should be true contenders for the Cup for at least 5-6 years with this group.

If you look at the NFL franchises that are consistent winners (NE, Indy, Philly, Balt, etc), they are never short on draft choices. In fact, they usually have more than their alloted share.

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 05:00 PM
Yeah, although about 80 percent of what happened with the Caps is the dumb luck of winning the lottery for Ovechkin. Hockey and basketball are different than football in that it just takes one guy to turn everything around.

Hi I think you're mistaken about hockey... Not trying to lecture but you seem to have some mistaken ideas about it. The star players in Hockey may play one third of the entire game... Hockey has something called shifts which due to the nature of the sport (every shift is like a series of wind sprints) even the very best players rarely play much more than about a third to a half of any game, usually closer to a third.

In hockey it is common knowledge that even the greatest player can only carry his team in bursts and in situations (like Sidney Crosby scoring clutch goals at the perfect time)... The greatest hockey player ever spent most of his career NOT winning Stanley cups and many years on only mediocre teams, who he could not single handedly elevate to greatness.

OV was only the start, the Caps have talent on every single line that would start on almost any team in the NHL. And it still wasn't enough to do well in the playoffs, but that's another story entirely...

/signed A long suffering Caps fan since the 1970's

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 05:21 PM
I would have done a few things differently, but I can't complain about this offseason.



So, what would you have done differently, and please be specific.




In my opinion, the Redskins after the 2009 season is an old team with holes at many spots. I would have made the decision to totally rebuild. I would collect draft choices by trading any tradable aging player for the best picks (even ones in 2011 or beyond) I could get. That list of players would include Moss, Cooley, Haynesworth, Fletcher, Carter, Rogers.

I would make a decision about Campbell. If I don't think he is the QB for this team, trade him too. But, even if I decide to dump Campbell, I would not give up two relatively high picks for an older QB. I would target a young QB (via trade, FA or draft) to develop.

I would make the decision that I would be prepared to live with this team being really bad for 2-4 years. I would not have hired Shanahan or Allen. I would try to hire a truly knowledgeable GM (like Polian, Newsome, etc) and let him select the head coach. If I can't get such a proven GM, I would consult with the really smart people in the NFL and find out who is an up and coming young GM who can evaluate personnel. Hire him and trust him to make the football decisions.

In other words, rebuild like the Caps did.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 05:30 PM
The only probable starters they've added since the beginning of the offseason have been:
Carriker(26 years old)
McNabb(33)
Trent Williams(22)
Maake Kemoeatu(31)
Artis Hicks(31)

Hardly some a bunch of "aging veterans."


Adding Carriker is fine. I am concerned that he will be a bust here like he was in St. Louis. But, the price was so small, it was a good gamble.

McNabb is too old for this team, as I see it.

Trent Williams is a fine addition, but I wish we could have traded that #4 spot for a bunch of picks. This team has a lot of holes, not just LT, to fill.

Kemoeatu and Hicks are both past 30 and would not be part of any rebuilding plan I would craft.

As I responded in another post, I would not be adding any player pushing 30 or beyond. Maybe except for a kicker--the good ones can perform well into their 40s.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 05:33 PM
In my opinion, the Redskins after the 2009 season is an old team with holes at many spots. I would have made the decision to totally rebuild. I would collect draft choices by trading any tradable aging player for the best picks (even ones in 2011 or beyond) I could get. That list of players would include Moss, Cooley, Haynesworth, Fletcher, Carter, Rogers.

In case you haven't noticed, the trade market is basically a corpse right now. We couldn't get anyone interested in Haynesworth even on a cheap contract(after our paying his bonuses).

I would make a decision about Campbell. If I don't think he is the QB for this team, trade him too. But, even if I decide to dump Campbell, I would not give up two relatively high picks for an older QB. I would target a young QB (via trade, FA or draft) to develop.


We did make a decision on Campbell, and actually did trade him, so you shouldn't have a complaint there. As for trading for a QB: we got McNabb for not much more than what the Seahawks gave up for Charlie "I've never thrown a pass in the NFL" Whitehurst, and based on how the draft shook out, which would you rather have:
McNabb+Trent Williams
or
Trent Williams+Jimmy Clausen?

I would make the decision that I would be prepared to live with this team being really bad for 2-4 years. I would not have hired Shanahan or Allen. I would try to hire a truly knowledgeable GM (like Polian, Newsome, etc) and let him select the head coach. If I can't get such a proven GM, I would consult with the really smart people in the NFL and find out who is an up and coming young GM who can evaluate personnel. Hire him and trust him to make the football decisions.

In other words, rebuild like the Caps did.

You mean, get the top pick in the draft and get the best player in the NFL? Thats not very realistic.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 05:40 PM
Adding Carriker is fine. I am concerned that he will be a bust here like he was in St. Louis. But, the price was so small, it was a good gamble.

And totally contradicts your complaining that the skins "brought in a bunch of aging veterans."

McNabb is too old for this team, as I see it.

Kemoeatu and Hicks are both past 30 and would not be part of any rebuilding plan I would craft.

As I responded in another post, I would not be adding any player pushing 30 or beyond. Maybe except for a kicker--the good ones can perform well into their 40s.

Kemoeatu was signed cheaply and filled a major need. Hicks also is a competent RT/RG option at a cheap price. Please tell me which under 27 year old starting capable players at RT and DT were available as unrestricted free agents that the skins passed on for them though.

Trent Williams is a fine addition, but I wish we could have traded that #4 spot for a bunch of picks. This team has a lot of holes, not just LT, to fill.

As I've pointed out a number of times: its next to impossible to deal away a top 5 pick out of the top ten. There's been only 2 trades in the last 10 drafts, and neither one yielded the team trading out of the top 5 a "bunch of picks." The Browns got 2 special teamers, a 2nd and a late first for the Sanchez pick. So, you're being extremely unrealistic with this plan...again.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 06:00 PM
New coach. Real GM.



Yeah, although about 80 percent of what happened with the Caps is the dumb luck of winning the lottery for Ovechkin. Hockey and basketball are different than football in that it just takes one guy to turn everything around.

As for the Skins, without a lot of draft picks I think this is about all you can expect this year.



New coach, yes. But, it remains very much to be seen whether he can successfully turn this franchise around.

Real GM? I have my doubts. I certainly do not consider him to be among the elite GMs of the NFL. He is not even close to people like Polian, Newsome, Peoli, etc.

As for getting lucky on Ovechkin being the only reason the Caps have a good team, I think you are way off base there. As 44 so aptly pointed out, hockey is not a one player sport--perhaps a super hot goalie on the occasion, but not a right winger.

The Caps have a lot of excellent young players besides Ovechkin (Backstrom, Green, Semin, Laich, Schultz, Varlamov, Carlson, etc)--that's why they are really good.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 06:04 PM
The star players in Hockey may play one third of the entire game... Hockey has something called shifts which due to the nature of the sport (every shift is like a series of wind sprints) even the very best players rarely play much more than about a third to a half of any game, usually closer to a third.

In hockey it is common knowledge that even the greatest player can only carry his team in bursts and in situations (like Sidney Crosby scoring clutch goals at the perfect time)... The greatest hockey player ever spent most of his career NOT winning Stanley cups and many years on only mediocre teams, who he could not single handedly elevate to greatness.

So transcendent players don't make the big difference in the NHL, eh?

Well the Caps won the lottery for Ovie in 2004. And they've just had arguably the best two seasons in franchise history. The most recent of which was '09, the best non-Original 6 reg season in NHL history.

And the Pens won the lottery for Crosby in 2005. And they've just been to back-to-back SC Finals including a win last year.

Let's see what the other great modern players have done, shall we?

Messier - 6 Stanley Cups
Gretzky - 4 Stanley Cups
Roy - 4 Stanley Cups
Lidstrom - 4 Stanley Cups
Yzerman - 3 Stanley Cups
Lemieux - 2 Stanley Cups
Hasek - 2 Stanley Cups

Sorry but superstars are huge in hockey. Much more so than in football.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 06:05 PM
New coach, yes. But, it remains very much to be seen whether he can successfully turn this franchise around.

Real GM? I have my doubts. I certainly do not consider him to be among the elite GMs of the NFL. He is not even close to people like Polian, Newsome, Peoli, etc.

As for getting lucky on Ovechkin being the only reason the Caps have a good team, I think you are way off base there. As 44 so aptly pointed out, hockey is not a one player sport--perhaps a super hot goalie on the occasion, but not a right winger.

The Caps have a lot of excellent young players besides Ovechkin (Backstrom, Green, Semin, Laich, Schultz, Varlamov, Carlson, etc)--that's why they are really good.

So, if we took Peyton Manning off of the Colts or Drew Brees off of the Saints, they would be fine since they have so many good players?

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 06:09 PM
As for getting lucky on Ovechkin being the only reason the Caps have a good team, I think you are way off base there. As 44 so aptly pointed out, hockey is not a one player sport--perhaps a super hot goalie on the occasion, but not a right winger.

The Caps have a lot of excellent young players besides Ovechkin (Backstrom, Green, Semin, Laich, Schultz, Varlamov, Carlson, etc)--that's why they are really good.

I never said Ovechkin was the only reason the Caps have a good team. But he's the biggest by a long shot. Compare years 1974-2005 to years 2006-09. That's the Ovie factor right there.

And you are reaching badly by including names like Varly and Carlson - those guys have barely played for the team. I'll give you Lars, Green and Semin, although the latter two don't seem like they play well when the game is on the line.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 06:22 PM
In case you haven't noticed, the trade market is basically a corpse right now. We couldn't get anyone interested in Haynesworth even on a cheap contract(after our paying his bonuses).



We did make a decision on Campbell, and actually did trade him, so you shouldn't have a complaint there. As for trading for a QB: we got McNabb for not much more than what the Seahawks gave up for Charlie "I've never thrown a pass in the NFL" Whitehurst, and based on how the draft shook out, which would you rather have:
McNabb+Trent Williams
or
Trent Williams+Jimmy Clausen?



You mean, get the top pick in the draft and get the best player in the NFL? Thats not very realistic.



The reason I would take on Carriker is because he is still relatively young at 26 and has not had a lot of wear-and-tear on his body due to his lack of playing time in St.Louis. He is not an "aging veteran".

You do make some good points that the trading market is tough this year and it has become increasingly difficult to trade out of the top 5 and get reasonable compensation.

I am not suggesting it would be easy to make trades, but I would do whatever I could. Certainly, Cooley (who should have some trading value) should have been shopped.

As for the QB situation, yes I would prefer Williams + Clausen over Williams + McNabb if I came to the conclusion that Clausen is worthy of being the QB to rebuild around. If not, I would target another young QB. Under no circumstances would I give up two relatively high picks for an older QB, even if it means a short term upgrade--especially since other teams are guarding such picks like gold, as you noted. If it is so hard to pry loose such picks from other teams, these picks must be worth a lot--maybe worth a good young QB or a young stud prospect at another position.

Kemoetu and Hicks didn't cost anything, I understand. But, I wouldn't be looking to rebuild with 30-year olds. They probably represent a short term upgrade, but towards what end? More 8-8 type of seasons? No thanks.

Yes, the Caps got lucky when they won the lottery for Ovechkin. Somebody has to pick No. 1. I don't think the 2010 Skins (without McNabb) would have been very far away from the 2011 No. 1 pick. Even with McNabb, it wouldn't shock me if Wash picked really high in 2011.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 06:33 PM
The reason I would take on Carriker is because he is still relatively young at 26 and has not had a lot of wear-and-tear on his body due to his lack of playing time in St.Louis. He is not an "aging veteran".


And he's going to be more relevant to the Redskins' future than Galloway, Draft, etc.

You do make some good points that the trading market is tough this year and it has become increasingly difficult to trade out of the top 5 and get reasonable compensation.


Considering that your entire preferred offseason is based on working the trade market, you've hit a pretty big speed bump here.

I am not suggesting it would be easy to make trades, but I would do whatever I could. Certainly, Cooley (who should have some trading value) should have been shopped.


If no one wanted Haynesworth at 3 years, 16 million(essentially), who would take Cooley at 3 years, 20-22 million.

And wouldn't getting rid of a 28 year old multiple pro bowler contradict your "theories" about building around good young talent?

As for the QB situation, yes I would prefer Williams + Clausen over Williams + McNabb if I came to the conclusion that Clausen is worthy of being the QB to rebuild around. If not, I would target another young QB. Under no circumstances would I give up two relatively high picks for an older QB, even if it means a short term upgrade--especially since other teams are guarding such picks like gold, as you noted. If it is so hard to pry loose such picks from other teams, these picks must be worth a lot--maybe worth a good young QB or a young stud prospect at another position.

Thats exactly why Shanahan probably made the McNabb trade: he didn't see any young Qbs out there worth that 2nd round pick and made a cost-benefit analysis that McNabb+developmental QB in the late round/UDFA realm+Trent Williams was better for the franchise than Jimmy Clausen+Rex Grossman and Trent Williams.

Kemoetu and Hicks didn't cost anything, I understand. But, I wouldn't be looking to rebuild with 30-year olds. They probably represent a short term upgrade, but towards what end? More 8-8 type of seasons? No thanks.


Fine: which under-27 year old unrestricted free agents at RT and DT/NT did the skins pass on to sign them?

Yes, the Caps got lucky when they won the lottery for Ovechkin. Somebody has to pick No. 1. I don't think the 2010 Skins (without McNabb) would have been very far away from the 2011 No. 1 pick. Even with McNabb, it wouldn't shock me if Wash picked really high in 2011.

You can believe whatever you want to, but with Williams at Left tackle and Hicks at RT-both of whom represent massive upgrades to the plate of suck that was Heyer/Jones/Williams at OT last year-and the upgrade in QBing and coaching, its going to be extremely difficult for the skins to be picking very high next season.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 06:33 PM
So, if we took Peyton Manning off of the Colts or Drew Brees off of the Saints, they would be fine since they have so many good players?


Where did I suggest that?

All I was saying is that for a team to be good, star players also need a good supporting cast. Ovechkin is not 80% of the reason the Caps are good. The Caps have at least a half dozen really good young players besides Ovechkin. The combination of stars and good supporting casts is why teams are good.

Manning, Brees, no one can be successful without a good support cast. Conversely, the team also needs the star players. That's why TEAM sports are about TEAMS.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 06:38 PM
I never said Ovechkin was the only reason the Caps have a good team. But he's the biggest by a long shot. Compare years 1974-2005 to years 2006-09. That's the Ovie factor right there.

And you are reaching badly by including names like Varly and Carlson - those guys have barely played for the team. I'll give you Lars, Green and Semin, although the latter two don't seem like they play well when the game is on the line.


You did say 80% of the reason. I think that's way too high. Do you think the Caps would be a good team if the front office put a bunch of mediocre players around Ovechkin?

I don't think Varly and Carlson are reaches at all. Both are budding stars.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 06:42 PM
Where did I suggest that?

All I was saying is that for a team to be good, star players also need a good supporting cast. Ovechkin is not 80% of the reason the Caps are good. The Caps have at least a half dozen really good young players besides Ovechkin. The combination of stars and good supporting casts is why teams are good.

Manning, Brees, no one can be successful without a good support cast. Conversely, the team also needs the star players. That's why TEAM sports are about TEAMS.

So, the Canadiens decided to shut down Ovechkin and the rest of your supposed "good players" couldn't do anything to stop them from winning 3 straight games.

In fact, look at the games in the Caps/Canadien series:
Game 1: Ovechkin 0 goals, 0 assists, 0 +/- Caps lose
Game 2: Ovechkin 1 goal, 3 assists, +3 +/- Caps win
Game 3: Ovechkin 1 goal, 0 assists, +1 +/- Caps win
Game 4: Ovechkin 2 goals, 1 assists, +3 +/- Caps win
Game 5: Ovechkin 1 goal, 0 assists, -1 +/- Caps lose
Game 6: Ovechkin 0 goals, 0 assists, -1 +/- Caps lose
Game 7: Ovechkin 0 goals, 1 assist(which came late in the game when it was 2-0 Montreal), 0 +/-, Caps eliminated

Sure looks like without Ovechkin producing, the rest of the team can't do squat.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 06:46 PM
And he's going to be more relevant to the Redskins' future than Galloway, Draft, etc.



Considering that your entire preferred offseason is based on working the trade market, you've hit a pretty big speed bump here.



If no one wanted Haynesworth at 3 years, 16 million(essentially), who would take Cooley at 3 years, 20-22 million.

And wouldn't getting rid of a 28 year old multiple pro bowler contradict your "theories" about building around good young talent?



Thats exactly why Shanahan probably made the McNabb trade: he didn't see any young Qbs out there worth that 2nd round pick and made a cost-benefit analysis that McNabb+developmental QB in the late round/UDFA realm+Trent Williams was better for the franchise than Jimmy Clausen+Rex Grossman and Trent Williams.



Fine: which under-27 year old unrestricted free agents at RT and DT/NT did the skins pass on to sign them?



You can believe whatever you want to, but with Williams at Left tackle and Hicks at RT-both of whom represent massive upgrades to the plate of suck that was Heyer/Jones/Williams at OT last year-and the upgrade in QBing and coaching, its going to be extremely difficult for the skins to be picking very high next season.


I am not suggesting any rebuilding would have been done in one offseason. It will probably take 2-4 years.

Yes, collecting draft choices to rebuild with will not be easy. But, the successful franchises manage to do so. Why can't we?

I hope you are right about the improvement on the Oline. I hope we surprise a lot of teams and contend for the playoffs. But, I just don't see it--especially in view of the 2010 schedule.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 07:00 PM
I don't think Varly and Carlson are reaches at all. Both are budding stars.

I don't disagree with the "budding" part. But you can't put them in the same sentence as Green, Lars, etc. I don't think either has played 40 NHL games.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 07:04 PM
Ovechkin is not 80% of the reason the Caps are good. The Caps have at least a half dozen really good young players besides Ovechkin.

I think what happens in hockey in basketball is that you get that first superstars and all the other pieces fall into place. I think Ovie is 80 percent of the reason the team has its success over the past three years (maybe more), because he is what got the ball rolling.

Look at the Caps over the past three decades. It's not an accident that once the elite superstar is in place it's easier to put pieces around him.

My point this whole time is that you simply can't do that in football.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 07:15 PM
Yes, collecting draft choices to rebuild with will not be easy. But, the successful franchises manage to do so. Why can't we?

Didn't the skins just keep trading down in the most recent draft to make 6 picks ultimately? If you're picking in the bottom half of the first, its much easier to do what the Pats do and collect 2nds. Its extremely difficult to deal out of the top 5 or deal vets in this market.

HanburgerBum
05-11-2010, 07:15 PM
So, the Canadiens decided to shut down Ovechkin and the rest of your supposed "good players" couldn't do anything to stop them from winning 3 straight games.

In fact, look at the games in the Caps/Canadien series:
Game 1: Ovechkin 0 goals, 0 assists, 0 +/- Caps lose
Game 2: Ovechkin 1 goal, 3 assists, +3 +/- Caps win
Game 3: Ovechkin 1 goal, 0 assists, +1 +/- Caps win
Game 4: Ovechkin 2 goals, 1 assists, +3 +/- Caps win
Game 5: Ovechkin 1 goal, 0 assists, -1 +/- Caps lose
Game 6: Ovechkin 0 goals, 0 assists, -1 +/- Caps lose
Game 7: Ovechkin 0 goals, 1 assist(which came late in the game when it was 2-0 Montreal), 0 +/-, Caps eliminated

Sure looks like without Ovechkin producing, the rest of the team can't do squat.


I think Semin did have a bad series vs the Canadiens. But, overall, I think the Caps lost because they ran into a super hot goalie. The Caps dominated most of the games they lost in this series with territory advantage and the number of shots on goal. But, when a goalie stands on his head, he can carry an inferior team over a superior team. The same goalie is giving the defending champion Penguins a lot of trouble too.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 07:19 PM
I think Semin did have a bad series vs the Canadiens. But, overall, I think the Caps lost because they ran into a super hot goalie. The Caps dominated most of the games they lost in this series with territory advantage and the number of shots on goal. But, when a goalie stands on his head, he can carry an inferior team over a superior team. The same goalie is giving the defending champion Penguins a lot of trouble too.

The Caps scored 17 goals in their 3 wins against the Canadiens. I don't think that anyone can say they ran into a hot goalie.

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 07:40 PM
Where did I suggest that?

All I was saying is that for a team to be good, star players also need a good supporting cast. Ovechkin is not 80% of the reason the Caps are good. The Caps have at least a half dozen really good young players besides Ovechkin. The combination of stars and good supporting casts is why teams are good.

Manning, Brees, no one can be successful without a good support cast. Conversely, the team also needs the star players. That's why TEAM sports are about TEAMS.

x2 unfortunately no matter how many times the skins try and buy a team in the off season some people will always thinks it's a great idea.

Who cares if they want to call the caps a bad example lets stick to football, While I don't agree and I think the Caps or the Red Wings are perfect examples of building through the draft regardless of the "star player" factor... Same with the Avalanche, Devils and Stars (hell even tampa and Carolina) and the Pens they did lots of Redskins like aimless poking about with free agents and older players before they too rebuilt and became sucessful again). All those teams were composed mostly of well drafted core players with the odd free agent making a difference. If they want to call those bad examples because it's hockey (and they're inconvenient to their contention) and are asserting for the record that the Skins "plan" is a good way to win lots playoff games and superbowls in football then lets run with that, and bring this back around to football and presents some examples, I'll start first:

I got Indy; now your turn

44 goes 50 gut
05-11-2010, 07:41 PM
The Caps scored 17 goals in their 3 wins against the Canadiens. I don't think that anyone can say they ran into a hot goalie.

Well someone who hasn't got a clue and bases his arguments on stats sure wouldn't :)

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 07:46 PM
Well someone who hasn't got a clue and bases his arguments on stats sure wouldn't :)

So, this "hot" goalie shut downs the caps in game 1, then gives up 9 goals in the next 1.5 games, then mysteriously gets hot again? Only to give up 6 goals in game 1(without Crosby scoring any of them in that game) against the Penguins and 10 more goals in games 2-6.

You're right: I do base my argument on stats and the stats belie this "the caps lost because the Montreal goalie got hot" nonsense. Especially since he really hasn't been that "hot."

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 07:46 PM
The Caps scored 17 goals in their 3 wins against the Canadiens. I don't think that anyone can say they ran into a hot goalie.

Don't forget, Carey Price was the goalie for Game 4 (6-3 Caps win). And Price gave up two of the goals in Game 3 (5-1 Caps win).

Halak was basically light's out Games 5-7.

akhhorus
05-11-2010, 07:48 PM
Don't forget, Carey Price was the goalie for Game 4 (6-3 Caps win). And Price gave up two of the goals in Game 3 (5-1 Caps win).

Halak was basically light's out Games 5-7.

Then I modify my comment about Halek(that would mean that that Halek gave up 9 goals in 1 full game and part of another though), but Halek did give up 6 goals to the Penguins in game 1 after his "lights out" run against the Caps.

cal_junior
05-11-2010, 08:03 PM
Then I modify my comment about Halek(that would mean that that Halek gave up 9 goals in 1 full game and part of another though), but Halek did give up 6 goals to the Penguins in game 1 after his "lights out" run against the Caps.

Halak was outstanding in the four wins, mediocre in Game 2 and awful in Game 3. As mentioned he did not play in Game 4

His stats for the series were unreal: .940 save percentage over six games, despite allowing 3 goals on 13 shots in Game 3. But in my opinion it had more to do with the Habs' defense than Halak.

Keino
05-11-2010, 08:14 PM
Get the Puck outta here with all that hockey talk! :moon2:

JFlamez
05-11-2010, 09:30 PM
I think everyone needs to chill......4 RBs with talent....old talent but talent can never be a bad thing. I know many of you guys want to rebuild and we will. We are filling holes with talent now cause we can't feel the talent holes with Rookies cause of Mr. Vinny giving away our draft picks. All these guys are on 1 yr deals and LJ has a 2yr low cost deal....So chill!!!! none of these guys could be on the roster next year.

Also in case you didn't know....all the free agents to be this year are going to be available Next yr....good young talent in Positions we need.

OL
Marcus McNeill, San Diego Chargers (26)
Jared Gaither, Baltimore Ravens (24)
Willie Colon, Pittsburgh Steelers (27)
Jahri Evans, New Orleans Saints (27)
Logan Mankins, New England Patriots (28)

LB
DeMeco Ryans, Houston Texans (26)
Shawne Merriman, San Diego Chargers (26)
Thomas Davis, Carolina Panthers (27)
D’Qwell Jackson, Cleveland Browns (26)

DL
Marcus Spears, Dallas Cowboys (27)
Elvis Dumervil, Denver Broncos (26)
Ray Edwards, Minnesota Vikings (25)

Believe me our GM and Coach no this. We get a few of these players along with the 6 draft picks we have next year... we will be fine to be a contender

An offense with (Mcnabb, Portis, LJ, W.Parker, Westbrook, Moss, Cooley, Davis, Thomas, Kelly, and Galloway) is much better than last year and more than enough to make other teams at least worry to game plan against us.

Our Front office is buying time stocking up talent cause they saw last year we had none that worked well together.

joethefan
05-11-2010, 10:42 PM
I could care less whose back there, if shanny can produce 1800-2000 yards rushing no matter who does it, I'd be happy.

sdredskinsfan
05-11-2010, 11:33 PM
I have no problem signing him, but not as a Rb. Play him as a slot WR/returner.

I've been thinking recently about who will replace El in the slot. I agree, Westbrook might be a good option there and as a 3rd down back (not at same time of course). Westbrook would hopefully take pressure off Moss and D. Thomas. Even if Westbrook not signed, still would be curious who would play slot. Shan must have something in mind by releasing El so early.

smoak
05-12-2010, 06:37 AM
The only probable starters they've added since the beginning of the offseason have been:
Carriker(26 years old)
McNabb(33)
Trent Williams(22)
Maake Kemoeatu(31)
Artis Hicks(31)

Hardly some a bunch of "aging veterans."

I disagree, but still 3 of the 5 you hand picked are north of the magical "30". I am not as critical as some, but I will admit that I am sceptical about throwing a lot of slop at the RB & WR positions just to see what sticks.

warpaint
05-12-2010, 06:40 AM
I've been thinking recently about who will replace El in the slot. I agree, Westbrook might be a good option there and as a 3rd down back (not at same time of course). Westbrook would hopefully take pressure off Moss and D. Thomas. Even if Westbrook not signed, still would be curious who would play slot. Shan must have something in mind by releasing El so early.

i had been thinking the same thing,had thought maybe parker could play that position,but i dont have any ideal as if parker can catch the ball.

Hr fan
05-12-2010, 09:35 AM
I think everyone needs to chill......4 RBs with talent....old talent but talent can never be a bad thing. I know many of you guys want to rebuild and we will. We are filling holes with talent now cause we can't feel the talent holes with Rookies cause of Mr. Vinny giving away our draft picks. All these guys are on 1 yr deals and LJ has a 2yr low cost deal....So chill!!!! none of these guys could be on the roster next year.

Also in case you didn't know....all the free agents to be this year are going to be available Next yr....good young talent in Positions we need.

Believe me our GM and Coach know this. We get a few of these players along with the 6 draft picks we have next year... we will be fine to be a contender

An offense with (Mcnabb, Portis, LJ, W.Parker, Westbrook, Moss, Cooley, Davis, Thomas, Kelly, and Galloway) is much better than last year and more than enough to make other teams at least worry to game plan against us.

Our Front office is buying time stocking up talent cause they saw last year we had none that worked well together.

+1. Very well said.

As GMs we want it both ways. Give me young talent, but where is that to come from? As you note, not really anywhere but the draft this year, so picks are hoarded. Post the DMc trade our FO starts with an untradeable #4 and 3 other choices and winds up with a #4 addressing our biggest need, 5 choices, and Carriker (26 yrs old). There were 3-5 real quality FAs and we rightly avoided signing any according to most on this forum. For instance I believe that Peppers is 2-3 yrs older than Carriker and is going to play LB for the first time at the price he commanded? vinnie strikes again (must have been a consultant there).

Numbers are generally manipulable, but here goes:

Each team has 7 choices a year and the average length of service is about 5 years. Assume all players make it (unrealistic, but assume) and the roster of 53 + 8 ps members is made up of 35 draftees. The ps is largely made up of prospects, which assume are all UDFA. Therefore 18 players in any given year are from some source than the draft (I know that the draft hit rate is closer to 50% so the numbers should be reversed). What are the sources?

Someone else's RFA (when we raided the Jets it was less than a success and this means usually a draft choice for an older player)
Someone else's UFA (not usually as young as a draft choice - none really available due to the CBA this year)
Someone else's practice squad (Torrian?)
Other sources (CFL, Arena league (Haslett has picked 1 or 2), players out of football for a while (Galloway), each of which sources our FO has tapped this year)
Older vets that last year's team does not want (the source of much of our offseason moves)

Note a trade on a 1 for 1 basis does not affect the numbers, even if a draft choice for a player is involved.

This year there was virtually only one way to get younger - the draft. And all teams treated their picks like gold. Given where we were our FO is producing a better team than we had last year, using that which is available to it. We are not getting younger unless you count our 6 draft choices + Carriker, which is average. That is the average of all teams, and given the hand snyderatto dealt them they done very well IMHO.

akhhorus
05-12-2010, 10:38 AM
I disagree, but still 3 of the 5 you hand picked are north of the magical "30".

HB's comment(paraphrasing) was that the skins were depending on a bunch of 'aging veterans' that they brought in this offseason.

I am not as critical as some, but I will admit that I am sceptical about throwing a lot of slop at the RB & WR positions just to see what sticks.

I would agree if that was the plan for the starters. I don't think Johnson or Parker will unseat portis for the starting job nor do I think that the skins expecting much from Galloway/Wade/Williams/etc other than 4th/5th WR play.

jaylen
05-12-2010, 01:02 PM
HB's comment(paraphrasing) was that the skins were depending on a bunch of 'aging veterans' that they brought in this offseason.



I would agree if that was the plan for the starters. I don't think Johnson or Parker will unseat portis for the starting job nor do I think that the skins expecting much from Galloway/Wade/Williams/etc other than 4th/5th WR play.

Man I hope you're right this George Allen rotuine is getting pretty stale.

Over the hill gang mentality.

I'd actually like Westbrook if healthy more than Parker as the change of pace 3rd down guy.

BurgundyNGold
05-12-2010, 01:14 PM
Man I hope you're right this George Allen rotuine is getting pretty stale.

Over the hill gang mentality.

I'd actually like Westbrook if healthy more than Parker as the change of pace 3rd down guy.
Me too, but then we'd have 2 of our 3 RB coming off of major concussions that ended their previous season. I'd like to sign Westbrook, but I don't see how we can carry 2 guys with concussion issues.

hockeygoalie29
05-12-2010, 01:17 PM
Man I hope you're right this George Allen rotuine is getting pretty stale.

Over the hill gang mentality.

I'd actually like Westbrook if healthy more than Parker as the change of pace 3rd down guy.

The difference of course is that George Allen traded future picks for all his vets. With the exception of McNabb, all these guys were free agents. Nothing wrong with picking these guys up and seeing if they have anything left. Worst case scenario is that you cut them before the season. Best case is that one of them shows they still have the skill that made them all pros just a couple seasons ago.

cal_junior
05-12-2010, 01:44 PM
According to Schefter, Westbrook left Redskins Park today w/ out a contract. He will meet with Denver tomorrow.

smoak
05-12-2010, 01:54 PM
HB's comment(paraphrasing) was that the skins were depending on a bunch of 'aging veterans' that they brought in this offseason.

I would agree if that was the plan for the starters. I don't think Johnson or Parker will unseat portis for the starting job nor do I think that the skins expecting much from Galloway/Wade/Williams/etc other than 4th/5th WR play.

I'd say on the whole 30+ is aging (for the NFL thank you :D), but I wasn't taking a side... Just commenting.

Totrally agree about this being for complementary roles, but it isn't like the starters are a home run.

akhhorus
05-12-2010, 02:40 PM
I'd say on the whole 30+ is aging (for the NFL thank you :D), but I wasn't taking a side... Just commenting.

Meh, 31-33 isn't aging. 35+ is. That falls into the Bruce Smith, Deion, etc paradigm that being referred to.

Totrally agree about this being for complementary roles, but it isn't like the starters are a home run.

Certainly vast improvements on what we had in 08/09.

Patrick
05-12-2010, 06:48 PM
Brian Westbrook ................ and gone

BurgundyNGold
05-12-2010, 07:04 PM
Brian Westbrook ................ and gone
If he signs with Denver, he's an idiot. In DC, he'd be able to play his old team twice a year, in a WCO with his brother. If I were to believe in providence, I'd have to take that as a pretty strong sign.

Emmanouel8
05-12-2010, 07:54 PM
If he signs with Denver, he's an idiot. In DC, he'd be able to play his old team twice a year, in a WCO with his brother. If I were to believe in providence, I'd have to take that as a pretty strong sign.

He's probably doing his due diligence in going to see what Denver has to offer. If the offers are similar he'd likely sign with us.

I'd like him in any capacity especially 3rd downs which is one of our biggest weakness.

BurgundyNGold
05-12-2010, 07:57 PM
He's probably doing his due diligence in going to see what Denver has to offer. If the offers are similar he'd likely sign with us.

I'd like him in any capacity especially 3rd downs which is one of our biggest weakness.
Probably, but it's not like his market has been overwhelming. If he signs in Denver, he's an idiot and we should cut his brother, if for no other reason, because of the same genetic and environmental likelihood of making bad decisions lol.

ChiefPowhatan17
05-13-2010, 09:27 AM
No more Beagles!

HanburgerBum
05-14-2010, 12:04 PM
x2 unfortunately no matter how many times the skins try and buy a team in the off season some people will always thinks it's a great idea.

Who cares if they want to call the caps a bad example lets stick to football, While I don't agree and I think the Caps or the Red Wings are perfect examples of building through the draft regardless of the "star player" factor... Same with the Avalanche, Devils and Stars (hell even tampa and Carolina) and the Pens they did lots of Redskins like aimless poking about with free agents and older players before they too rebuilt and became sucessful again). All those teams were composed mostly of well drafted core players with the odd free agent making a difference. If they want to call those bad examples because it's hockey (and they're inconvenient to their contention) and are asserting for the record that the Skins "plan" is a good way to win lots playoff games and superbowls in football then lets run with that, and bring this back around to football and presents some examples, I'll start first:

I got Indy; now your turn


I must admit that your post confused me. I have always been a proponent for the Redskins to build thru the draft. If you think that as well, we are on the same page.

shally
06-02-2010, 01:30 PM
per the WaPo insiders, Shanahan "wants" westbrook and the team has made an offer to him..

cannot see parker staying if westbrook is signed..

Redskin4Life
06-02-2010, 01:52 PM
per the WaPo insiders, Shanahan "wants" westbrook and the team has made an offer to him..

cannot see parker staying if westbrook is signed..

Unless Westbrook is being looked at by the staff as a WR in the slot man... we are in a bit of a pickle with Moss' situation and McNabb/Westbrook's been a connection for years. Westbrook would take less of a beating as a WR and he could use his strengths in another way.

Then we would still be looking at Parker/Johnson/Portis/Torain...

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-02-2010, 04:44 PM
nfl live said shanny told the press today the skins have offered Brian westbrook a contract.did'nt say the amount or length of it.

Keino
06-02-2010, 04:53 PM
nfl live said shanny told the press today the skins have offered michael westbrook a contract.did'nt say the amount or length of it.

Really? I thought we were pursuing Brian Westbrook. I had no idea that we were going after Michael. Is this one of those 1 day signings so he can retire a Redskin? Did he even play anywhere else?

Farmer Ted
06-02-2010, 04:56 PM
Really? I thought we were pursuing Brian Westbrook. I had no idea that we were going after Michael. Is this one of those 1 day signings so he can retire a Redskin? Did he even play anywhere else?

The team may need a bodyguard.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-02-2010, 05:06 PM
Really? I thought we were pursuing Brian Westbrook. I had no idea that we were going after Michael. Is this one of those 1 day signings so he can retire a Redskin? Did he even play anywhere else?

got a miagraine from hell via the temperal lobe dude!
what can i say?can you please fix it?

Keino
06-02-2010, 06:41 PM
got a miagraine from hell via the temperal lobe dude!
what can i say?can you please fix it?

No worries, I was just giving you crap. I'll fix it for you. (Actually you can fix it yourself)

esmith1790
06-02-2010, 06:41 PM
got a miagraine from hell via the temperal lobe dude!
what can i say?can you please fix it?

Based off that pick as your avatar i can see why u have a migraine from Hell!!!!

:devil2:

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-02-2010, 06:55 PM
Based off that pick as your avatar i can see why u have a migraine from Hell!!!!

:devil2:

that guy is getting a permanent lobotomy! lol

Lavar703
06-02-2010, 09:43 PM
got a miagraine from hell via the temperal lobe dude!
what can i say?can you please fix it?

Excedrin Migraine dude. Ive been getting them regularly since I was about 5 years old and that's the only thing that works.

Seriously what is the point of bringing in aging, breaking-down vets? There going crazy for RB's but they chose to pass on Dwyer in the draft to select a TE that we have no use for.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-03-2010, 09:30 AM
Excedrin Migraine dude. Ive been getting them regularly since I was about 5 years old and that's the only thing that works.

Seriously what is the point of bringing in aging, breaking-down vets? There going crazy for RB's but they chose to pass on Dwyer in the draft to select a TE that we have no use for.

i have had them since i was around 6 or 8,but i take medication to control mine.ocassionally,one slips through like it did yesterday.the only thing that helps mine is demerol and thorazine.:giantsuk:

Goskins11
06-03-2010, 06:51 PM
i have had them since i was around 6 or 8,but i take medication to control mine.ocassionally,one slips through like it did yesterday.the only thing that helps mine is demerol and thorazine.:giantsuk:

i think the plan for the new TE is to take sellers spot at FB. Not sure if it will work but sellers really dogged it last year and i don't trust him to block for our rb or for our qb.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-03-2010, 07:15 PM
i think the plan for the new TE is to take sellers spot at FB. Not sure if it will work but sellers really dogged it last year and i don't trust him to block for our rb or for our qb.
people have been running right by and through sellers since he signed his new deal.

WARDRUM
06-04-2010, 05:10 AM
people have been running right by and through sellers since he signed his new deal.

He worked for that deal but once he got it he just lost his passion or should I say his belly got filled and lost his appetite.

Redskinmayhem
06-04-2010, 08:18 AM
people have been running right by and through sellers since he signed his new deal.

yes they have. I just don't get it. when he tries, he's pretty darn good. If I was Big Mike, I would be embarrassed to watch the film w/ my teammates after some of those performances.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-04-2010, 12:55 PM
yes they have. I just don't get it. when he tries, he's pretty darn good. If I was Big Mike, I would be embarrassed to watch the film w/ my teammates after some of those performances.

especially the detroit game last year.if i were him,i'd never want that brought up!portis was right when he called him out on it,he should have done it behind closed doors though!

Moe
06-04-2010, 01:37 PM
"To a few observers at minicamp it looked like Willie Parker did not have much burst in his game," Rich Tandler of Comcast Sports Net Washington observed."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/02/willie-parker-off-to-slow-start-with-redskins/

dj_stouty
06-04-2010, 01:39 PM
"To a few observers at minicamp it looked like Willie Parker did not have much burst in his game," Rich Tandler of Comcast Sports Net Washington observed."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/02/willie-parker-off-to-slow-start-with-redskins/

Yup...Fast Willie's days in the B&G are numbered....

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963
06-11-2010, 11:20 AM
did shanny put a deadline on the offer he made westbrook?
he offered him a contract last week,and there still has'nt been an announcement other than that.think he'll sign after the final otas?
i would think shanny would want him at the mandatory camp would'nt he?

IH Brave
08-16-2010, 06:59 PM
Sorry to bring this thread back up, but I figured it was better than starting a new one. Westbrook has signed with the 49ers.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5468991

Former Eagles running back Brian Westbrook has signed a one-year contract with the San Francisco 49ers.

A league source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that Westbrook's deal is worth $1.25 million guaranteed, with $1.25 million worth of incentives.

smoak
08-16-2010, 08:47 PM
I respect BW, but he should retire.... Or at least donate his brain after having two concussions in one season.

JRudy
08-16-2010, 09:03 PM
I think he could of thrived here. GL in San Fran Westbrook.

ARParr
08-16-2010, 09:36 PM
49'ers? That's cool. I think we've got enough new pieces to incorporate this year without worrying about yet another running back...

BurgundyNGold
08-17-2010, 02:11 AM
LOL @ Byron. Your brother hates you. :D

Moe
08-17-2010, 08:18 AM
Not a bad move for him; let Gore eat the hits and he's on the best team in a crap division so they have a good shot at the post-season.

44 goes 50 gut
08-17-2010, 11:11 AM
I think the Skins have too many RB's as it stands, with WP already the odd man out, Westbrook would have just taken time away from the two young guys, and then ended up on IR after we cut one or both. Honestly with CP being the best blitz protect RB on the roster and Westbrook being a LB blitz + helmet to helmet block from retirement/Vegetable status I don't really know how worthwhile Westbrook would have been as a 3rd down back.

That said watch him have the best healthiest year of his career with Gore taking the brunt of the carries.... I have to admit his dynamic game is perfectly suited to a 3rd down back... His fragileness on the other hand and the explosive play of Toriane (SP?) makes me kinda glad he signed elsewhere.