Marcus Washington gone?

[100% PURE WHOOP ASS]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, you didn't hear, we're also cutting Portis and trading Campbell. Sheesh. What a load of crap.

WE ARE? anybody wanna by a clinton portis jersey real cheap?

[saden1]

I call BS...if they wanted Washington out they would have offered him in the Briggs trade.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

I call BS...if they wanted Washington out they would have offered him in the Briggs trade.

I think they want this Briggs deal so bad because they are looking at Rocky to replace Marcus on the strong side.

I don't think they'd do it prior to this year though.

I could see them being willing to throw in Marshall, but Rocky is exactly what this team needs: youth.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think they want this Briggs deal so bad because they are looking at Rocky to replace Marcus on the strong side.

I don't think they'd do it prior to this year though.

I could see them being willing to throw in Marshall, but Rocky is exactly what this team needs: youth.

Problem is, these coaches don't seem to have much faith in their "youth". They're more reluctant with rookies than practically any team in the league.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Problem is, these coaches don't seem to have much faith in their "youth". They're more reluctant with rookies than practically any team in the league.

Well, that's OK from a coaching standpoint. If they are playing the best players and they happen to be older, theres nothing wrong with that.

It's not excusable from a roster building standpoint. Veteran players are expensive and a team full of veterans will regress every year. To date, we've counteracted this phenomenon by signing younger, expensive FAs who are right in their prime. But because we don't have the cap to sign 53 players in their prime every 3 years or so, we end up just counterbalancing the veteran regression and spinning our wheels.

The solution is to bring in players who wont begin to regress after their 3rd year on the team (draft picks). They don't have to play right away, because the coaches should be playing the best guys. They just have to be on the roster so that our team gets better over time, not worse.

Like I've said many times, Free Agency is a very legit method to roster building. But the key is to find the best players that no one else wants (or that few teams want), maybe due to age or a perceived flaw that really doesn't matter. That's why London Fletcher was in theroy a good signing. We didn't break the bank for him. Smoot, another good signing, same reasons. If I have a problem with either signing, its that we signed them for too long a time period. 3 year contracts are ideal with this type of player. It's also the reason why Briggs would be a bad trade, because he's too much money.

The best way to fill a gaping need in this league is to fill it twice, veteran free agent who isn't wanted by teams (i.e. NOT somebody in the prime of his career) who you can get on a short deal, and then a high draft pick at the position who takes over for the signing when he proves better.

Draft picks don't fill immediate needs, and aging vets don't fill future needs. That's why the market is so ridiculous for 4th and 5th year players, and exactly why its cheaper, smarter, and less risky to put your eggs in two baskets instead of one.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Good post, G.

I especially like this part:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Draft picks don't fill immediate needs, and aging vets don't fill future needs.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Problem is, these coaches don't seem to have much faith in their "youth". They're more reluctant with rookies than practically any team in the league.

You are correct. They don't have much faith in young players. It seems our coaching staff would rather play with ineffective older guys like Wynn, Daniels, Brunell and Holdman. Makes no sense. How does Rocky not get more playing time over Holdman last year? If I were the owner I would just go off on these guys. It's the coaches job to get Rocky ready. You mean to tell me Rocky couldn't do any worse than Holdman? C'mon! What a bunch of BS!

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think they want this Briggs deal so bad because they are looking at Rocky to replace Marcus on the strong side.

I don't think they'd do it prior to this year though.

I could see them being willing to throw in Marshall, but Rocky is exactly what this team needs: youth.

How is Rocky going to play strongside over the TE at 235lbs? Rock is a weakside backer. If the coaches have this plan in mind then they really don't have a clue what they are doing.

Marcus Washington isn't going anywhere. He's a team leader that can still perform.

[Alvin#40]

Why is this even a thread Title?!?!?!...wasting everyone's time reading this CRAP....let alone the missed heart beat....****

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

How is Rocky going to play strongside over the TE at 235lbs? Rock is a weakside backer. If the coaches have this plan in mind then they really don't have a clue what they are doing.

Marcus Washington isn't going anywhere. He's a team leader that can still perform.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock into his size on the strong side. He has to be able to jam the TE, not take him to the ground.

WLB is a position that inherently has more responsibility. I feel it's easier for any player to look good on the strong side.

It probably isn't as big a difference as I'm making it out to be, but after watching the difference between our defense with Lavar and with Holdman, I'm beginning to think that WLB is the key position for LB play.

It might also explain why they didn't replace Holdman with Rocky, but allowed him to take over for Washington at the SLB when he was hurt. As a rookie, he probably lacked the experience to play a good WLB, but could be masked somewhat at SLB.

[RMSkins]

They may have meant Lemar Marshall instead of Marcus.....just a guess.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by RMSkins

They may have meant Lemar Marshall instead of Marcus.....just a guess.

Doubt that. More like they don't have a clue. I don't believe for a minute MW is going to be cap casulity.

However, I do hope his hip PT is going as planned, haven't heard anything on how he is recovering. We will need a healthy MW.

[FRPLG]

????

This is called wild speculation without one bit of credibility. I am not even sure how they came to this decision. Even someone with only a modicum of football sense wouldn't come to this type of conclusion. Musta been written by an intern.

[Pocket$ $traight]

If they think that they will cut Springs with no back-up plan they might as well go sniff glue.

Cutting Springs and Washington when we have no cap issues, that makes a sh$tload of sense.

If these guys have nothing intelligent to write, they just make stuff up...

[Pocket$ $traight]

If they were going to cut Washington, wouldn't it make sense to offer him to the Bears?

These guys need to focus on the women's final four. They have no clue.