How bad is our secondary?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

He left of his own accord and no one knew he'd play that way in SF. Sh*t like this happens and people need to get over it. I'm sure people here would have been pissed if BA gave Rogers top CB money (which he wanted) after the pedestrian season he had here.

BA would not have given Rogers top money, but he should at least attempted to lock him up to something decent. From the way everything went down, we let him walk. Rogers was not a bad or average corner here, he got the bad press for dropping balls he should have caught, which is true. But he played good man to man and was an above average to good coverage CB. He complimented the risk taking, big play corner on the other side well.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

yep, the same guy who got pissed when Danny Boy and Vinny gave D Hall a 50 million dollar contract after several games who is now a pro bowler and an integral part of the top defense in the league. Same guy we low balled.

We didn't low ball him. You apparently haven't listened to a single thing Smoot has said. Otherwise, you wouldn't be saying this crap.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

We didn't low ball him. You apparently haven't listened to a single thing Smoot has said. Otherwise, you wouldn't be saying this crap.

if the FO wanted Carlos to be here, he would still be here. So we let a probowler walk, its no big deal.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

You mean the Carlos ROGERS that left for San Francisco for pretty much the same amount of money that we offered him?

Yeah, can we stop bemoaning the loss of poor Carlos Rogers? He was given a few opportunities to stay and let's not forget he was benched for poor play and poor attitude 3 times while he was here. What's next, people saying 'well Champ Bailey is still playing at a high level and we just gave him away!'?

Our secondary is probably below average talent wise but our scheme and playcalling seemingly are built towards highlighting their weaknesses rather than called to their strengths. We don't have strong lock down man corners, so why do we zero blitz so much? We don't have particularly big or athletic safeties so why do we lock them up on slot WR so much?

I'm fine with an aggressive 3-4 but we have to be smart-aggressive. We can send 6 rather than 8. We can play coverage and try to get off the field on 3rd and 7 rather than bring the house, give up a 4 yard dump off, miss a tackle and give up a first down. We can blitz our MLB but drop someone else off the line into coverage to try to cover up a vacant area.

John Keim from the Examiner consistently says two things about our team and coaching staff.. 1) They call plays and run schemes for who they want us to be rather than for who we are. Meaning we don't have the players to be effective with the plays called. 2) Many coaches he has spoken to have indicated that the coverage schemes behind our blitzes are unsound-which leads to plays like what happened vs. Dallas last year, the Wilson play yesterday and the Hawkins long TD. If you are going to send the house you have to either get a jam on the WR or play enough of a shell that whatever happens in front of you can be quickly rallied to.

The other beef I have is specific to Dejon Gomes.. Is he healthy? On the Green TD he seemed to be limping and on every blitz he looked like he was going 3/4 speed rather than all out. I know we are banged up and short at that position but I'd rather see Doughty on that blitz than a jogging Gomes.

[Chico23231]

I think both a fairly talented, but we've given Andy Dalton, Sam Bradford career days back to back.

Schneed agree with you on the soft zone.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well everyone bitched about Rodgers missing those ints and my comment was "he is breaking up the play". Well we ran him out of town.

Didnt he want out of town though?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

We will have to wait until the off-season for this to change obviously but an idea of Where to start Could be sign aqib talib and draft tyrann mathieu to be our ss if he declares which I suspect he will.

Yes yes please my god and yes. I know longer care about what the hell issues they have(for the most part). Id rather problematic pro bowler than an angelic bum after what i witnessed yesterday. Get them here and keep them out of trouble at least there is hope of a good dback there. Our guys now have zero hope i believe even with haslett gone. Give me talent i can mold and educate and try and teach to be a model citizen because you cant teach the talent part.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

if the FO wanted Carlos to be here, he would still be here. So we let a probowler walk, its no big deal.

To an extent but carlos DID NOT want to be here. We may have been slightly stubborn in our discussions with him but it was a two way street to say the least.

[Chico23231]

D. We could have offered Carlos a solid deal to extend him at ANY time.

E. Why did we chose to give D Hall 50+ million dollars?

the last question is relevant because it shows choices made by the FO and is directly related to the state of the secondary today.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

D. We could have offered Carlos a solid deal to extend him at ANY time.

E. Why did we chose to give D Hall 50+ million dollars?

the last question is relevant because it shows choices made by the FO and is directly related to the state of the secondary today.

Vinny Cerrato gave Hall 50 mil, not BA. I hate when people bring this up, this has nothing to do with Rogers.

Rogers had the opportunity to impress a new regime by playing lights out in the final year of his contract, but he didn't.

For many years, the Redskins fan b*tched and moaned at Cerrato's front office for giving money to players who didn't produce. Rogers had an extremely pedestrian season his final year with the Redskins that was not warranted the money he was asking.

Unless you tell me that Bruce Allen had seen the future during Rogers' pedestrian final year, there is no way that this argument is valid. OF COURSE you can complain now because this a$$hole had a good season with the Niners, but don't BS me into saying that it would have been a good signing then to give Rogers all that money.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Carlos became a pro bowler after he left the team. He was a good corner when he was here with us and had a pedestrian season during his contract year. Your argument would only be correct if:

A. Rogers had play at a Pro Bowl level the last season he was with the Skins (which he didn't)

B. Rogers had left for SF for more money (which he didn't)

C. Rogers had wanted to stay here with the Redskins (which he didn't either)

And on that note can this discussion about how we ruined our d when we "let him go" be over

[SmootSmack]

You don't have to listen to what I said, just your own judgement.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You don't have to listen to what I said, just your own judgement.

he was understandably jilted. He may have not wanted to return, but we never went out of our way to bring him back. Situation imo was severly mishandled first my Vinny, which mishandled a list of FO decisions. In the end we chose D Hall. But Carlos shut everybody after his play last year. It was a mistake in the end. Los may have been an a$$hole, id still take his play on the field.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

he was understandably jilted. He may have not wanted to return, but we never went out of our way to bring him back. Situation imo was severly mishandled first my Vinny, which mishandled a list of FO decisions. In the end we chose D Hall. But Carlos shut everybody after his play last year. It was a mistake in the end. Los may have been an a$$hole, id still take his play on the field.

B/c to do so would have cost much more than he had demonstrated being worth. Everyone snubbed him, EVERYONE. Essentially, he was looking to be the next Nate Clements. He was a solid cover corner who I (personally) would have liked to have kept. He wanted shut down corner money. He wasn't getting that from us or anyone else.

As to last year - tell me when did he once play with that ability here? Had he done so, he may still be here. (Does he have any picks yet this year? Or is he reverting back to old school Carlos now that he has a long term deal?)

At this point, it's pretty clear you've made up your mind and refuse to be dissuaded by facts.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

B/c to do so would have cost much more than he had demonstrated being worth. Everyone snubbed him, EVERYONE. Essentially, he was looking to be the next Nate Clements. He was a solid cover corner who I (personally) would have liked to have kept. He wanted shut down corner money. He wasn't getting that from us or anyone else.

As to last year - tell me when did he once play with that ability here? Had he done so, he may still be here. (Does he have any picks yet this year? Or is he reverting back to old school Carlos now that he has a long term deal?)

At this point, it's pretty clear you've made up your mind and refuse to be dissuaded by facts.

Joe, I believe he may have been the top rated corner coverage-wise last year. He had never played like that before, BUT in his last year here he was extremely effective in coverage. He only played in 12 games in 2010, but was within the top 15 cover corners in the league. Carlos was at minimum a serviceable, above average CB who had the potential to be better if he coulda just squeezed the damn ball. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/pla...&hl=en&ct=clnk

2009 wasnt a very good year for him in Blanche's last year here.

The thing that pisses me off is we draft someone and develop him and let him go. Now we sit around and bitch about our CB secondary and say we should spend money here and there, when we had someone who did at the minimum a decent job. Im not looking to be dissuaded