Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;249795]Show me a team that does a better job of keeping a young core group together? They've had very few misses on that count (letting Derrick Burgess hit free agency and giving Todd Pinkston an extension are the only two bad decisions that come to mind). They've made four appearances in the NFC championship game and a Super Bowl appearance. Let me remind everyone that we haven't won a single playoff game beyond the wild card round since the last Super Bowl run in '91. After years of roaming the desert, yes, I'd be happy for the Skins to achieve what Philly has over the last 5-6 years. Anyone who doesn't see that as an improvement must prefer winning the "paper title" in March, as the Danny aspires to every offseason.[/quote]

What the Skins have, or have not accomplished is immaterial. I think we can all agree that they have spent to much on player aquisation from time to time.
My point was and is, what have the Eagles really accomplished that have impressed you so much? If they improve........substancially, they can be they can be...............the Buffaloe Bills. They have accomplished all this with NO viable division competition. You can see what they are becoming as the division improves. Wish to be the Pat's. Seahawks, not the ugly sister

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[quote=Hog1;249803]What the Skins have, or have not accomplished is immaterial. I think we can all agree that they have spent to much on player aquisation from time to time.
My point was and is, what have the Eagles really accomplished that have impressed you so much? If they improve........substancially, they can be they can be...............the Buffaloe Bills. They have accomplished all this with NO viable division competition. You can see what they are becoming as the division improves. Wish to be the Pat's. Seahawks, not the ugly sister[/quote]
I blame the Eagles woes of the past two years far more on injuries and the T.O. implosion last season than division improvement. My point is, that we as a fan base are living off past accomplishments from 15+ years ago, because that is all we can hang our hat on. I'll repeat, I'd take Philly's run from 2000-2005 in a heartbeat after years of bottom feeding. During that run, there [B]were[/B] other good teams in the East (2000 Giants won 12, 2002 Giants won 10, 2003 Cowboys won 10). 2004 was the only season Philly had all dogs as division competition. If you want to talk about a team that has had ZERO division competition, look no further than Seattle over the past 2 1/2 years. No other team in the West is over .500 for that stretch. And BTW, I'd also love to accomplish what Buffalo did in the early 90's. We haven't had back-to-back winning seasons since '91-'92. We have no business turning up our noses at anyone's accomplishments. Show me 2 or 3 winning seasons in a row and that would be a massive improvement. But I digress.

As for Clements, I'd prefer to spend any FA money to build up a stud D-line. Does anyone really believe Clements would be a good player with our total lack of pressure from the front four?

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

I wish we went after trevor price when he was availabe instead of garbage like carter. We gotta be patient and go after the truly talented free agents when they are available. And keep those acquisitions few and far between

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

If would not turn up your nose at the Eagles organization and basically anything connected to them, then I cannot make you understand. I personally don't want to win bad enough to mimic that.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

Eagles are a notoriously cheap franchise, and they are very good at not spending money and staying successful. However, that cheap mentality is the reason they havent won a superbowl. Their boldest move was signing TO, and they got to the superbowl, but with a few other big time playmakers they might have actually won it.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

LB kawika mitchell.

espn said he is th best LB in FA this year and we need LB help.

have a look:
[url=http://www.kcchiefs.com/player/kawika_mitchell/]Kawika Mitchell, #50, Linebacker, Kansas City Chiefs[/url]

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;249783]I've been preaching the Philly way ever since I started posting here. The Eagles almost never allow their young core guys reach free agency. By re-signing core guys early, they get a significant discount. Too bad we didn't have cap space to resign Smoot and Pierce during the 2004 season. If Gibbs ever wakes up to this more effective philosophy to keep a core group intact, I agree that Cooley should be the first guy we offer an extension since his contract runs out after next season. Mike Sellers becomes a free agent at the same time, and I'm sure teams would be willing to give him more than we want to pay if he's allowed to hit the open market.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the Eagles are the cap geniuses everyone makes them out to be. For starters they consistently leave cap money (usually a lot) on the table every year. Snyder may spend his money on the wrong guys but at least he's willing to spend it. The Eagles were hopeless until Andy Reid and (more importantly) McNabb showed up.


[QUOTE=SouperMeister;249788]Taylor's contract is actually through 2010, and it becomes very cap friendly after this season. [URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

His contract is VERY cap friendly over the next few years. This is mainly due to "Deion credits" over the next few years. I hope ST doesn't use that as ammunition if (when) he holds out again. Plus I think we should put together a tape of the thousand deep TDs he's given up in coverage since he got here, and send it to his agent.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[quote=dall-assblows;249825]LB kawika mitchell.

espn said he is th best LB in FA this year and we need LB help.

have a look:
[URL="http://www.kcchiefs.com/player/kawika_mitchell/"]Kawika Mitchell, #50, Linebacker, Kansas City Chiefs[/URL][/quote]

I dunno, have'nt we picked up enough free agents from crappy defenses

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

Just to touch on Sean Taylor real quick, the guy is going to hold out if we dont get him a new contract. If you ask me, he will probaboly do it after this offseason, as well he should. Taylor got some bad advice signing the rookie contract that he did, but when we are paying the guy on the bench to be the highest paid saftey of all time, and Taylor is on the feild making plays, he'll have a problem with it.

As far as Nate Clements, I dont want him. This is exactly what is wrong with this team, we label guys busts after 1 crappy year (imo, Rogers has work, but is solid), Springs is getting older, but he has another good 1-2 years left. Thats time to sign some young talent and try to develop them before we break the bank for someone.

Lastly, if we improve this god awful defensive line, then teams wont be able to run on us to open up the pass, we wont be giving QB's 30 seconds to throwt he football, and that will greatly help our secondary. Signing Deion Sanders in his prime wouldnt help our secondary right now. Every single CB in the league would have gotten beaten on that Galloway play last week. Yes Rogers has played poorly in some games, outside of Minnesota, I have a real hard time looking at him as the problem. I say stick with the secondary that we have, take a look at the linebackers, but fix the damn line. Period. If we fix the line, that makes our LB, and secondary problems better from the get go.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;249828]I dunno, have'nt we picked up enough free agents from crappy defenses[/quote]

there defense isn't crappy. it's 13th. plus what the hell are you talking about? in case u haven't noticed, our defense is terrible. it can't hurt at all to give him a shot.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/DEF-TOTAL/2006/regular?sort_col_1=4]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/url]

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[QUOTE=The Zimmermans;249780]under 5? that's wishfull thinking, I'll set the over/under at 36[/QUOTE]


I got $100 on over.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

I agree with GMANC. We should focus on the defensive line before we go out and get a brand new secondary. The defensive line is definitely our achilles. We can't stop the run, and there's no rush whatsoever.

I say we add another guy to compliment Griffin, and a legit pass rusher to replace Daniels/Wynn.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[QUOTE=Gmanc711;249829]Just to touch on Sean Taylor real quick, the guy is going to hold out if we dont get him a new contract. If you ask me, he will probaboly do it after this offseason, as well he should. Taylor got some bad advice signing the rookie contract that he did, but when we are paying the guy on the bench to be the highest paid saftey of all time, and Taylor is on the feild making plays, he'll have a problem with it.

As far as Nate Clements, I dont want him. This is exactly what is wrong with this team, we label guys busts after 1 crappy year (imo, Rogers has work, but is solid), Springs is getting older, but he has another good 1-2 years left. Thats time to sign some young talent and try to develop them before we break the bank for someone.

Lastly, if we improve this god awful defensive line, then teams wont be able to run on us to open up the pass, we wont be giving QB's 30 seconds to throwt he football, and that will greatly help our secondary. Signing Deion Sanders in his prime wouldnt help our secondary right now. Every single CB in the league would have gotten beaten on that Galloway play last week. Yes Rogers has played poorly in some games, outside of Minnesota, I have a real hard time looking at him as the problem. I say stick with the secondary that we have, take a look at the linebackers, but fix the damn line. Period. If we fix the line, that makes our LB, and secondary problems better from the get go.[/QUOTE]

I agree comletely. Time to bring in Young cheap players and let them earn their spots. There is a reason buffalo is giving up on Clements...

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[quote=CrazyCanuck;249826]I don't think the Eagles are the cap geniuses everyone makes them out to be. For starters they consistently leave cap money (usually a lot) on the table every year. Snyder may spend his money on the wrong guys but at least he's willing to spend it. The Eagles were hopeless until Andy Reid and (more importantly) McNabb showed up.[/quote]

I'd agree with this. I think they're very smart about identifying the players they want to keep for the long haul, and resigning them early in their careers, and consequently getting them for bargain prices.

Of course, the whole reason you do that is to keep cap figures low for your core, so that you then later have the flexibility to go grab the free agents you need. The Eagles aren't aggressive enough in free agency.

We know Danny Boy and Gibbs aren't shy in pursuing free agents. If they could just be smart about keeping their core together early on in their careers, they'd have even more cap space in the long haul with which to grab free agents.

Re: Do We Have A Legit Shot At Nate Clements?
 

[quote=Gmanc711;249829]Just to touch on Sean Taylor real quick, the guy is going to hold out if we dont get him a new contract. If you ask me, he will probaboly do it after this offseason, as well he should. Taylor got some bad advice signing the rookie contract that he did, but when we are paying the guy on the bench to be the highest paid saftey of all time, and Taylor is on the feild making plays, he'll have a problem with it.

As far as Nate Clements, I dont want him. This is exactly what is wrong with this team, we label guys busts after 1 crappy year (imo, Rogers has work, but is solid), Springs is getting older, but he has another good 1-2 years left. Thats time to sign some young talent and try to develop them before we break the bank for someone.

Lastly, if we improve this god awful defensive line, then teams wont be able to run on us to open up the pass, we wont be giving QB's 30 seconds to throwt he football, and that will greatly help our secondary. Signing Deion Sanders in his prime wouldnt help our secondary right now. Every single CB in the league would have gotten beaten on that Galloway play last week. Yes Rogers has played poorly in some games, outside of Minnesota, I have a real hard time looking at him as the problem. I say stick with the secondary that we have, take a look at the linebackers, but fix the damn line. Period. If we fix the line, that makes our LB, and secondary problems better from the get go.[/quote]

Nice post G, hopefully not to logical for the Skins.