Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Oh well...... Time to move to the Davis era, so long cooley, thanks for the memories, but honestly, you were never a top 3 TE in any year......... But GL

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

I'm glad cooleys on IR. He wasn't going to do anything for us this year anyway, with a knee injury that was recurring and a shattered finger. He just looked slower this year, and like he wasn't that interested in playing when he was out there. Fred Davis has shed weight and gone out there playing like an Antonio Gates type of TE. He's made me forget about Cooley. I think Cooley may return next year, but not for much, even though he's a fan favorite, being that he was drafted in the same year we got ST, and that he was one of the few guys who panned out in our drafts. Add in that his last name was Cooley, and that he was one of the few good white players on our team, and bam we had our fan favorite. Goodbye Chris. I know you'll enjoy doing what you love doing most. Pottery and Christy!

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Love Cooley and want him back next season. But I reserve the right to change my opinion if Paulsen legit plays Cooley out of a job.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

put a fork in him...he is finished here

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Nomad;852355]Oh well...... Time to move to the Davis era, so long cooley, thanks for the memories, but honestly, you were never a top 3 TE in any year......... But GL[/quote]

Or we could skip Davis and move right on to Paulson who did an admirable job catching passes for 1st downs when others were dropping passes.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SBXVII;852396]Or we could skip Davis and move right on to Paulson who did an admirable job catching passes for 1st downs when others were dropping passes.[/quote]

he's slow. fred gets downfield.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SBXVII;852396]Or we could skip Davis and move right on to Paulson who did an admirable job catching passes for 1st downs when others were dropping passes.[/quote]

Nobody is gameplanning around Paulsen.. not to say he tapped his potential but that could just be the Yoder effect.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

CC's knee is the real problem as it just wouldnt get better, the finger was just the icing on the cake for putting him on IR. I'm not certain that CC is done as a Redskin but I do think his spot on the team is no longer certain as it has been in the past.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=NC_Skins;852350]I think he's supposed to account for a $4 million salary next year which is the main reason. Also, it's obvious his injuries have affected his performance. He looked like a old man out there this year running. Paulsen looked faster than he has all year. No way a back up TE is going to get that type of coin, and I seriously doubt he'll see any type of decent pay on the open market. If he were to take a significant pay cut and take a back seat to Fred, then by all means keep the guy around.[/quote]

As I said, money might be an issue and that could potentially be the reason why he could leave the team. My beef is with the "youth movement" people that have been calling for the team to get rid of CC the moment that Davis had a decent game.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SBXVII;852302]Cough cough, if Davis keeps giving up catchable balls he might not be retained either.[/quote]Make no mistake, Davis will be resigned. More than last week's drop, I have a bigger issue with Davis not fighting hard for two balls that ended up Grossman picks in the Philly game. Both were decent throws, where premier tight ends like Gonzalez and Gates fight to make plays on the ball.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

We all love Cooley. He's been a great Redskin. But to be honest he isn't a great red zone target, a guy that can score double digit TD's and that's been the problem around here...not being able to score points. We need playmakers on offense and he doesn't fit the bill there. If he comes back then great. I kinda hope he does, perhaps he can play fullback, but I don't want him at TE anymore.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

I'm hoping this is for the best for CC & the Skins. Love me some Cooley. Here's how I see it:

1) This may be the end of football for him. Doesn't sound good that he's coming off an operation on that knee & it still has bothered him. He wasn't the same player this year as last, much slower. He's a smart guy that has a life outside football, so I wouldn't be surprised if he walks away while he still can rather than risking a long-term injury.

2) I seriously hope that this is not a case where we get to see the cold, heartless side of B. Allen. The bright side is I think Shanny will want him back if he's healthy. A pay cut in the form of a new deal w/incentives would be ideal.

3) Cooley has shown he's a team guy. He won't complain about being a backup & he wants to finish his career in DC. The team should always find a way to work something out w/guys like him. Hope that's the case.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

If healthy I think he will be back.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SouperMeister;852424]Make no mistake, Davis will be resigned. More than last week's drop, I have a bigger issue with Davis not fighting hard for two balls that ended up Grossman picks in the Philly game. Both were decent throws, where premier tight ends like Gonzalez and Gates fight to make plays on the ball.[/quote]

Davis needs to learn how to use his height advantage and attack the ball. There's no excuse for him being outjumped by a shorter DB.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Cooley's days are numbered. If we can get rid of him next year that would be a good move. I will take a 3rd rounder for him.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=saden1;852438]Cooley's days are numbered. If we can get rid of him next year that would be a good move. [B]I will take a 3rd rounder for him.[/B][/quote]

Good luck with that happening.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Bruce needs to get that extension done for Davis.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=12thMan;852274]Bottom line, it's time for the young guys to step up.

I may be the only who feels this way, but none of these injuries are deal breakers, save London, and this team can still make a run.[/quote]

As optimistic as I was at the beginning, for me it's hard not to see this thing going into a tailspin. We're last in the NFC in turnover ratio, 4th last in the league -- that's the only thing that's correctable. Otherwise, we have all the classic problems: Mediocre QB, no gamebreakers on offense. Hell, Moss was our biggest threat and even he hasn't been superstar material lately. Best you can say for Gaffney and Stallworth is that they're competent.

And apparently, asking young WRs like Paul, Hankerson, and Austin to step up and perform is a herculean task; 2-3 year learning curve rule for wideouts and all. Why does it always seem so hard for the Redskins to get some dynamic playmakers?

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Beemnseven;852444]As optimistic as I was at the beginning, for me it's hard not to see this thing going into a tailspin. We're last in the NFC in turnover ratio, 4th last in the league -- that's the only thing that's correctable. Otherwise, we have all the classic problems: Mediocre QB, no gamebreakers on offense. Hell, Moss was our biggest threat and even he hasn't been superstar material lately. Best you can say for Gaffney and Stallworth is that they're competent.

And apparently, asking young WRs like Paul, Hankerson, and Austin to step up and perform is a herculean task; 2-3 year learning curve rule for wideouts and all. [B]Why does it always seem so hard for the Redskins to get some dynamic playmakers[/B]?[/quote]

Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[URL]http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/n...-done-w-cooley[/URL]

Cooley is due $3.8 million next season, turns 30 in July and will have missed 20 games due to injury in the last three years. With emerging stud Fred Davis set to hit free agency after the 2012 season, the Redskins need to be saving money at the tight end position. Cooley's knee woes also appear chronic, making it doubtful he ever returns to the form he showed while becoming the Redskins' all-time leader in catches by a tight end.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

He could still kick Romos ass

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Mattyk;852441]Good luck with that happening.[/quote]

If we can't get a 3rd rounder for him then I would opt to keep him. No sense in letting him walk without a decent compensation similar to what the Bears got for Greg Olsen. Cooley can still be productive for 3 to 4 more years.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Sometimes injuries can be a blessing in disguise for a team... Alot of player step in and step up......look at the Chiefs.... Had bad injuries to their first team now rattled off 3 straight wins.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

cooley will be back. mark it down. too many peoples favorite redskin, and the revenue he brings in is probably the highest on the team when it comes down to individual players. He will take a slight pay cut, but we will keep him.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

And the hits just keep on coming, but under a pile of enormous setbacks lie great opportunities.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Beemnseven;852444]As optimistic as I was at the beginning, for me it's hard not to see this thing going into a tailspin. We're last in the NFC in turnover ratio, 4th last in the league -- that's the only thing that's correctable. Otherwise, we have all the classic problems: Mediocre QB, no gamebreakers on offense. Hell, Moss was our biggest threat and even he hasn't been superstar material lately. Best you can say for Gaffney and Stallworth is that they're competent.

And apparently, asking young WRs like Paul, Hankerson, and Austin to step up and perform is a herculean task; 2-3 year learning curve rule for wideouts and all. Why does it always seem so hard for the Redskins to get some dynamic playmakers?[/quote]
Building a football team is very much like building a portfolio, and most people don't know jack shit on how to do either, Vinny Cerrato and Dan Snyder included.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;852446]Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.[/quote]

We need a Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson type guy that opens up everything for the entire offense. That's what's been missing around here. When was the last time we had a wr w/ double digit TD's??

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

We signed Dominique Byrd and Jonathan Compas.

Hopefully Compas can guide Helu to the end zone.

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskinsmoves]Injury-riddled Redskins sign TE Byrd, OL Compas - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;852446]Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.[/quote]

Yep, this team has been so chronically broken that it struggles to do the basics required to be consistently decent, its unrealistic to expect them to be dynamic.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;852450]Sometimes injuries can be a blessing in disguise for a team... Alot of player step in and step up......look at the Chiefs.... Had bad injuries to their first team now rattled off 3 straight wins.[/quote]

Your 100% right. Paulson stepped in on Sun. and played pretty awesome. He stepped up and made some good catches.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;852446]Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.[/quote]We need at least 6-7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. It is impossible to get 14 starting playmakers and depth to go along with it using the strategy Snyder, Gibbs, Vinny, and even Shanahan year 1 tried to follow. There just isn't enough cap room and roster room left to pull it off. A sound team is a team full of playmakers.

And I'm not kidding about 7 playmakers. OLB, OLB, NT, Shutdown CB, Stud MLB, stud safety for our D. We have 4 of those positions filled on D, but only 3 long-term as Fletch is close to retirement. Franchise QB, stud RB, stud WR, stud TE, stud LT, a couple other stud OL are needed for our O. No one on our O has proven that they've reach that level of greatness, but at least we have some prospects that might help long-term in Trent, Helu, and Davis.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SBXVII;852396]Or we could skip Davis and move right on to Paulson who did an admirable job catching passes for 1st downs when others were dropping passes.[/quote]

Bahaha, yea let's see how that works......

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;852480]Green Bay is 7-0 and[B] I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year:[/B] Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.[/quote]

Yeah but that have one GREAT player in Rogers and he plays the most important position on the field.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;852480]Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.[/quote]

Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson would start on many teams. But even so, I'm operating under a definition than you are.

You do not need to be a Pro Bowler to be a playmaker. Justin Smith of San Fran is a playmaker in my eyes, even if he'll never sniff the Pro Bowl. What are merely "good players" to you [I]are[/I] playmakers to me. The impact on the game the player provides is what makes him a playmaker or not.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Hog1;852486]The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......[/quote]

Playmakers=/=superstars.

Art Monk. Superstar? maybe. Playmaker? **** yeah.
The Hogs. Superstar? No. Playmakers? **** yeah
Manley and Mann. Superstars? maybe. Playmakers? **** yeah
Riggo. Superstar? Maybe. Playmaker? **** yeah.
Dave Butz. Superstar? No. Playmaker? **** yeah.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=saden1;852449]If we can't get a 3rd rounder for him then I would opt to keep him. No sense in letting him walk without a decent compensation similar to what the Bears got for Greg Olsen. Cooley can still be productive for 3 to 4 more years.[/quote]Well, then how do we explain the last three years?

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=GTripp0012;852497]Well, then how do we explain the last three years?[/quote]

I guess you are forgetting that he had 77 receptions for almost 900 yards last year, and that was the year he really picked up on his blocking.

All that while giving Fred Davis some playing time, cause you all know we didnt run any two TE sets last year, lol.

In short, he is a valuable commodity, definitely worth a 3rd rounder to some team, possibly a 3rd and 4th. I still think we should keep him though.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;852480]Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.[/quote]

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.