Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Hog1;262002]Did not Charlie spearhead the effort to draft Mario Williams, and pass up Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and Matt Leinart?[/quote]


i was just getting ready to type that. Do you want the guy that passed on possibly the best talent coming out of college football in the past 10 years? for a DE?? pass on a guy that could touch the ball 25 to 30 times, for a guy that may get a sack a game and 5 tackles.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

A GM may or may not be the answer. I think the players we have on our team are better than 90% of the roster of most teams in the NFL. A GM would not have won us 5 more games. We got out coached in a few of the games. GW out coached himself this year with trying all kinds of cover 2 schemes that he has never used. We didn't stick with what won us all those games at the end of the year last year. That is why we are 5-9. Our D didn't play with the hear and emotion of last year. Springs being hurt may have hurt us a bit, but when you #1 corner is the getting beat (Carlos) like a mule it doesn't really matter who your #2 is does it? I think the front office, including Gibbs, jumped a little too quick. We had the #11 ranked offense in the NFL last year. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that. Teams that have the continuity, the familiarity of each other are the ones that start winning more games every year. I think the coaching staff got a little lazy in the offseason and just assumed we would come right back and be the same team. In stead of getting rid of people we think are the problem, why not keep them around(Saunders, williams, AA ect) Williams is a great D coach, Saunders systems have won a super bowl and is usually top 5 every year. I would agree to a GM in the regards to drafting college kids, but all in all its the players and coaches who win and lose games. we have the talent every year to win a ton of games.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;262455]Because of injury? Where does the article say that?[/QUOTE]


Then that only proves the blunder of the Archuleta signing even more. Their $10 million man, uninjured, gets beaten out by a journeyman defensive back who's been a reserve for most of his career.

Either way, you cannot tell me with a straight face that Gregg Williams, the man who according to many accounts, personally lobbied for signing Adam Archuleta expected him to be the #3 safety behind Sean Taylor and Pierson Prioleau all year long.

Take a look at the words of our own "Burgundy Army" blog, from July 28 of this year:

[url]http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:hp2oNjkYNRUJ:www.thewarpath.net/wordpress/2006/07/+%222006+redskins%22%2B%22depth+chart%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=19[/url]

Here's the exact wording:

"While ‘Skins fans were relieved to have Taylor in the fold again, they were also buzzing over the addition of Adam Archuleta. Arch’s workout routines are legendary, providing him with the ability to dish out immense punishment in close quarters. His range gives Gregg Williams the ability to blitz from either safety position and still cover a large portion of the field with one safety. [B]Prioleau again figures into the mix as a solid [U][I]3rd option[/I][/U] as safety[/B], as well as a valuable special teams contributor."



How many different ways can we illustrate how bad of a move this free agent signing was? Good lord man, I'll take Casserly's mistake of drafting Mario Williams any day over this cluster fornication!

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

I think "starting" is a very loose term here. Seems like both Prioleau and Archuleta were going to play enough minutes and downs that who was taking the field at the very beginning is kind of a moot point.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

Well, we all know that Williams doesn't like the idea of 1st string, 2nd string, and so on. He makes it a point for every player, regardless of thier perceived position on the depth chart, to get significant playing time.

Nonetheless, to say that Archuleta was expected to be #3 behind Prioleau, or that somehow, Prioleau would have been the difference maker in the secondary this year is a bit of a stretch.

There's one thing that's not in dispute -- we all know where Archuleta is now.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Mattyk72;262362]So he gets credit for the good things, but no blame for when things haven't worked out??[/quote]

Every GM makes bad picks. Look at Bobby B. He made some HORRIBLE PICKS. Remember Tory Nixon? I just think CC is a smart sharp person when it comes to the NFL. I'm not saying bring him back as the GM but perhaps a consultant or something like that. He's certainly better than anyone we have now.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

All I know is you CAN NOT have the coaches picking the players. It just does not work.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

Nobody is saying Prioleau was supposed to start all year. The simple point was he was slated to start week 1, he got injured, and it was a significant injury as far as the secondary goes.

That was the original argument... that we can't blame injuries for this season because we "only" lost Portis for half the season and Springs for half. We countered with Prioleau and how important his loss was, and that's when the discussion spiraled away from the original point.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;262456]Big deal. Portis got hurt. A good GM would have drafted a backup of equal value. Springs was hurt. A good GM would have kept a reserve #1 CB on the bench just in case. Griffin got hurt. A GM would have made sure a run stopper of equal caliber played in his place. A good GM would have forced the new OC to make the team learn his system faster and with less mistakes in a shorter period of time. A good GM would make sure all rookies that he drafts would be able to learn the offense/defense and start immediately. A good GM would make sure our kicker makes every FG. A good GM wrinkles his nose and everything works perfectly. A good GM will never burn his microwave popcorn. A good GM always has just enough cereal left in his box before he totally runs out.[/quote]

HA! LOL

I heard Casserly burns popcorn though.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

I think everyone agrees that injuries are part of the game and every team should expect some during the year. I would add that yes a GM is not responsible for players getting injured - I would never hold any GM accountable for that. What I would hold a GM accountable for though is not thinking beyond the starters and hoping on a wing and a prayer that none of his starters get injured and not bother to build quality depth behind the starters.

I know in Gibbs era I with plan B free agency the Redskins were great at stacking up guys and building depth when starters went down. As far as Gibbs era II, I don't think there is near the depth they had in his first era - this is in my opinion is due to the salary cap. But with the salary cap in mind I would think there are a lot of teams out there that see this and know that they can't put all their eggs in one basket and devote huge bonuses to their starters thus leaving crumbs for the backups.

Here is a thought - instead of going out and getting 2 wide recievers and giving both large signing bonuses, why not sign one and use the money that was orginally used to sign the other to build depth so when a safety of a defensive lineman goes down they don't have to scrqamble and see who's available on the market?

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

It's tough to have that kind of depth no matter who you are. If you look at ANY team around the league, even those with "so-called" GMs, when a key player goes down, it directly affects the season. I'm talking that's the case with 99% of teams.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

I mean what do you propose we do in that situation. Say instead of signing Lloyd and Randle El, were we supposed to go out and sign Steve Hutchinson to have quality depth on the line? We got our insurance for a year in Duckett in case Betts AND Portis were hurt.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;262582]I mean what do you propose we do in that situation. Say instead of signing Lloyd and Randle El, were we supposed to go out and sign Steve Hutchinson to have quality depth on the line? We got our insurance for a year in Duckett in case Betts AND Portis were hurt.[/quote]

I would say sign either Lloyd or ARE but not both. I am not saying go out and use the money we saved by not signing both to go sign Steve Hutchinson - everyone knows he is a all pro and a starter. I say you get quality backups if you can. I know that finding these guys is tough but at least if you have the money you have the chance to go get them. Maybe you strike out and some of the quality backups are not that great, but at least you have the cap space to do it.

Also I would say you try to get these backups without giving up draft choices as they did in the Duckett deal.

All in all I say try you try to get descent backups without giving up draft choices, sign a big free agent or two but don't break the bank for every top flight player out there, and keep as many draft choices as you can so you have more chances to pick a couple of good players. Just maybe this will provide the team with some good depth.

Heck the Patriots had a couple of lineman go down and they had some backups to replace them and they are in the palyoff hunt. They were able to get these backups by not breaking the bank and having the cap space to do it - whats wrong with that philopshy?

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=Bill B;262580]What I would hold a GM accountable for though is not thinking beyond the starters and hoping on a wing and a prayer that none of his starters get injured and not bother to build quality depth behind the starters.

Here is a thought - instead of going out and getting 2 wide recievers and giving both large signing bonuses, why not sign one and use the money that was orginally used to sign the other to build depth so when a safety of a defensive lineman goes down they don't have to scrqamble and see who's available on the market?[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Bill B;262583]I would say sign either Lloyd or ARE but not both. I am not saying go out and use the money we saved by not signing both to go sign Steve Hutchinson - everyone knows he is a all pro and a starter. I say you get quality backups if you can. I know that finding these guys is tough but at least if you have the money you have the chance to go get them. Maybe you strike out and some of the quality backups are not that great, but at least you have the cap space to do it.

Also I would say you try to get these backups without giving up draft choices as they did in the Duckett deal.

All in all I say try you try to get descent backups without giving up draft choices, sign a big free agent or two but don't break the bank for every top flight player out there, and keep as many draft choices as you can so you have more chances to pick a couple of good players. Just maybe this will provide the team with some good depth.

Heck the Patriots had a couple of lineman go down and they had some backups to replace them and they are in the palyoff hunt. They were able to get these backups by not breaking the bank and having the cap space to do it - whats wrong with that philopshy?[/quote]

There's nothing wrong with that, what I'm saying is what's wrong with OURS? Why not get both Lloyd and Randle El? We still have money leftover. If there's anything the Skins know how to do, it's stretch cap space. You'd think that if whoever the GM was KNEW that Portis, Springs and Pierson would go down, they would have gone out and GOTTEN the aforementioned quality depth.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;262582]We got our insurance for a year in Duckett in case Betts AND Portis were hurt.[/QUOTE]

For the amount of time and carries Duckett has had, Rock Cartwright would have been just fine.

Certainly we needed help at wide receiver, but not to the extent that was addressed -- spending two draft picks, both with $10 million signing bonuses. Again, in the rare instances we're in 3 or 4 wideout formations, Thrash and Patten would have been fine. Maybe even a practice squad guy could have gotten some time.

If nothing else, it's an example of a hideous misallocation of available resources. And if injuries are as big a reason to the season's downfall as many have said, then it only serves to further illustrate the need for a change at player-personnel.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

HA! Are you kidding? Name a team that's had a key injury that's gone on to have the season they expected to have prior to the injury. I'd love to hear some. There are VERY, VERY few cases that could be made. Very few.

And most of them have GMs! I guess they must not have planned well in case of injury.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;262585]There's nothing wrong with that, what I'm saying is what's wrong with OURS? Why not get both Lloyd and Randle El? We still have money leftover. If there's anything the Skins know how to do, it's stretch cap space. You'd think that if whoever the GM was KNEW that Portis, Springs and Pierson would go down, they would have gone out and GOTTEN the aforementioned quality depth.[/quote]


Would the GM know that these exact players you mentioned got hurt - no but I would hope a prudent GM would know that injuries are part of the game and therefore they should try to get as many good players as the the 51 man roster will allow. By focusing on the 22 starters yes you may win the offseason championshiop as our Redskins seem to do, but when the inevitable happens and some of your players get hurt you need to have someone to go in and pick up the slack. The Redskins do this somewhat in my opinon: I give an round of applause for the Todd Wade signing as ths was a great pickup for depth as you can't expect all 5 linemand to go through the season injury free. I also love the resigning of Betts as I think that a running back has a much higher chance to have some injuries - especially if the Redskins go with their smashmouth, run first identity. When Portis carried the ball as much as he did the first two years there had to be at least a discussion that he may be getting a little too much wear and tear.

But I hope the Skins FO changes their collective mindset and accepts the fact that injuries can happen - even to your star players as you listed above and therefore they should put a little more focus on the backups.

Other teams have had their star players go down too - for example when the Eagles FO meet in the offseason they probably asked a question along these lines "Do you think the one of our best players by the name of McNabb has a tendency to scramble a lot and therefore his chances of getting hurt are higher". The collective answer was most likely yes so what do they do - the sign a quality backup in Jeff Garcia and when Mcnabb goes down theie season is not lost and they still have a chance to get in the playoffs. They wqere able to get Garcia because of the availble cap space.

Is any team going to able to find quality backup starters for every position - no way in my opinion. But the goal should be to get as many contingency starters/backups as you can and if that means forgoing not signing all the top level free agents to have the cap space to me that seems the more prudent thing to do.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

:doh:

I'm done defending. Again, nobody can name me a good number of teams who still compete at a high level after key injuries. Ugh.

:mad:

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;262585]There's nothing wrong with that, what I'm saying is what's wrong with OURS? Why not get both Lloyd and Randle El? We still have money leftover. If there's anything the Skins know how to do, it's stretch cap space. You'd think that if whoever the GM was KNEW that Portis, Springs and Pierson would go down, they would have gone out and GOTTEN the aforementioned quality depth.[/QUOTE]

But we did get (if not already have) that depth. Portis goes down, we had Betts and got Duckett. Springs goes down, we had Kenny Wright (a starter on the Jags last year), Pierson goes down we got Vernon Fox and later Troy Vincent. So it's not like we couldn't or didn't get depth. Question, as I've brought up before, is did we get the right guys?

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=TAFKAS;262596]But we did get (if not already have) that depth. Portis goes down, we had Betts and got Duckett. Springs goes down, we had Kenny Wright (a starter on the Jags last year), Pierson goes down we got Vernon Fox and later Troy Vincent. So it's not like we couldn't or didn't get depth. Question, as I've brought up before, is did we get the right guys?[/quote]

TAFKAS - would you also question the method in which some of the depth was obtained - specifically giving up a 3rd rounder and either a possible swappage of 1rst rounder or 4th rounder next year?

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=Bill B;262599]TAFKAS - would you also question the method in which some of the depth was obtained - specifically giving up a 3rd rounder and either a possible swappage of 1rst rounder or 4th rounder next year?[/QUOTE]

Specifically in regards to the Duckett case, which is the one you're addressing here, yes that move has really baffled me to this point.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

I'm not here saying that we need a GM or that injuries never affect things. However, our offense was horrible all year w/ and w/out Portis. We had our starting QB and a more than serviceable back up all year. We had plenty of talent w/ WR's, O-line, and TE. We are just bad no excuses.

On D we don't have depth and are even worse than our offense.

I do think some go out of there way to defend some of the choices the FO makes that don't make good-wise sense.

...well the Duckett trade was a good one b/c if portis can't play then we're going to need another back in here and a 3rd round draft pick is ok

So why didn't the other 31 teams trade for him? Yea, i know CP was a little banged up. Did we not know that Betts can play and Rock is a pretty serviceable back up? A 3rd rounder for "insurance." Not very smart imo.

I just think our philosophy has to change a little. If one guys goes down we should have enough depth to at least get by. We didn't get by, we're 4-9 no where near .500 in a WEAK nfc.

I do think the FO is going to tweak some things though. Vinny has recently been on the radio and actually said they've made some mistakes (he mentioned not keeping their own-resigning there own---Pierce) as being one of them. So the FO is not dumb, and they will get it straight (i think and hope).

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Beemnseven;262586]For the amount of time and carries Duckett has had, Rock Cartwright would have been just fine.

Certainly we needed help at wide receiver, but not to the extent that was addressed -- spending two draft picks, both with $10 million signing bonuses. Again, in the rare instances we're in 3 or 4 wideout formations, Thrash and Patten would have been fine. Maybe even a practice squad guy could have gotten some time.

If nothing else, it's an example of a hideous misallocation of available resources. And if injuries are as big a reason to the season's downfall as many have said, then it only serves to further illustrate the need for a change at player-personnel.[/quote]

Can't agree more. Why do that to a guy like Rock who is more than serviceable.

Moss, LLoyd, ARE, Thrash, Patten 5 starters??? 4 making starters $? That was my concern and others concerns when they signed. How can we keep them all?

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

I honestly don't think we knew what we had in Betts... plus when you factor in his history of injuries and that's why we went after insurance in Duckett.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;262610]I honestly don't think we knew what we had in Betts... plus when you factor in his history of injuries and that's why we went after insurance in Duckett.[/QUOTE]

Oh come on. With the way Al Sauners was going ga-ga over Ladell Betts before the season began? Even with their apprehension with Betts' history of injury, we still had Cartwright.

It was a blunder plain and simple. One of many, I might add.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Beemnseven;262805]Oh come on. With the way Al Sauners was going ga-ga over Ladell Betts before the season began? Even with their apprehension with Betts' history of injury, we still had Cartwright.

It was a blunder plain and simple. One of many, I might add.[/quote]


The only part that is a blunder, in my opinion, was giving a pick to get him. Without question, they needed another back besides Betts and Cartwright after Portis went down, but giving up a third round pick for Duckett was pretty stupid.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper;262808]The only part that is a blunder, in my opinion, was giving a pick to get him. Without question, they needed another back besides Betts and Cartwright after Portis went down, but giving up a third round pick for Duckett was pretty stupid.[/QUOTE]


I don't know -- Cartwright had 27 carries last year for 199 yards in the 3rd spot behind Portis and Betts. This year Duckett has 30 for 118. Not that big a difference.

With as much as he busts his tail for special teams, you'd think the coaches have the confidence in Rock to be the third back. I don't want him for long stretches mind you, but a player on T.J. Duckett's level meant that a draft choice had to be in the offering to get him.

I think we'd have been fine with Cartwright.

And that's what I think has been one of the factors to the team's demise this year: Overkill with personnel on offense, while neglecting the obvious age of the defensive line.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Beemnseven;262814]I don't know -- Cartwright had 27 carries last year for 199 yards in the 3rd spot behind Portis and Betts. This year Duckett has 30 for 118. Not that big a difference.

With as much as he busts his tail for special teams, you'd think the coaches have the confidence in Rock to be the third back. I don't want him for long stretches mind you, but a player on T.J. Duckett's level meant that a draft choice had to be in the offering to get him.

I think we'd have been fine with Cartwright.

And that's what I think has been one of the factors to the team's demise this year: Overkill with personnel on offense, while neglecting the obvious age of the defensive line.[/quote]

Beemnseven - I thought the Redskins were one of the oldest teams in the NFL overall as well - not just on the defensive side of the ball - correct?

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[QUOTE=Bill B;262820]Beemnseven - I thought the Redskins were one of the oldest teams in the NFL overall as well - not just on the defensive side of the ball - correct?[/QUOTE]

Well, at the offensive line, Jansen and Thomas are the oldest, each with 8 seasons in the league. Behind them is Chris Samuels, with 7 seasons, Rabach has 5, and Dockery has 4. Not the oldest, but sometimes offensive linemen get into their best grooves later on. The biggest advantage we have is their time together. In 2007, that'll be 3 years playing together for all five of them, and 5 years for everyone except Rabach. That's fantastic continuity in this day and age.

Moss, Randle El, and Lloyd have 6, 5, and 4 seasons in the league respectively. Again, not the oldest tandem there is, in fact their experience is just where you'd like it.

Portis is young, but he's got lots of mileage; Betts was drafted the same year, (2002), and Jason Campbell is a youngster. Factor in Cooley, and this offense is young and vibrant at the skill positions -- with just the right level of maturity along the O-line.

Question is, will they gel to form a potent attack? I think so. It's all on Campbell and his chemistry with the receivers he's got.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Beemnseven;262814]I don't know -- Cartwright had 27 carries last year for 199 yards in the 3rd spot behind Portis and Betts. This year Duckett has 30 for 118. Not that big a difference.

With as much as he busts his tail for special teams, you'd think the coaches have the confidence in Rock to be the third back. I don't want him for long stretches mind you, but a player on T.J. Duckett's level meant that a draft choice had to be in the offering to get him.

I think we'd have been fine with Cartwright.

And that's what I think has been one of the factors to the team's demise this year: Overkill with personnel on offense, while neglecting the obvious age of the defensive line.[/quote]

The only problem that I would see having only Cartwright and Betts is that 1. Cartwright is a cog on all of the special teams. Those guys are always a play away from a season ender (see Prieleau sp? I love Taylor on teams but what happens if he gets hurt)

2. Betts has a long history of nagging injuries. If they went into the season with only Betts and Cartwright, that would be a leap of faith.

Anyway, I love Betts and what he brings to the table. I also love Cartwright and his versatility, but I think they had to have another good back. Giving up a third rounder was stupid. Especially since that will probably be a top 7 pick in the 3rd round.

Re: Casserly Keeping his options open
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;262860]The only problem that I would see having only Cartwright and Betts is that 1. Cartwright is a cog on all of the special teams. Those guys are always a play away from a season ender (see Prieleau sp? I love Taylor on teams but what happens if he gets hurt)

2. Betts has a long history of nagging injuries. If they went into the season with only Betts and Cartwright, that would be a leap of faith.

Anyway, I love Betts and what he brings to the table. I also love Cartwright and his versatility, but I think they had to have another good back. Giving up a third rounder was stupid. Especially since that will probably be a top 7 pick in the 3rd round.[/quote]

Don't forget we have James Thrash as a special teamer too. He's been here all year. So if Rock had to focus on O we still have options.