Ben Coleman

[Yomar]

Can someone please explain to me why the Skins are so against re-signing Ben Coleman? I know he isn't the greatest G in the world and that his strength is run blocking and Spurrier is supposedly going to emphasize the pass, but it sure would sound a lot better to me if we had 3 of our 5 starters returning from last year instead of 2 of 5. Granted, Coleman was the weakest of the 5 starters on last year's club, but that was a pretty good O-Line and there is something to be said for continuity...

Has there been any explanation as to why Coleman is not an option in the local media?

[Guest Trevor]

From what I can remember it wasn't that the Skins weren't interested in Coleman, it's that he wants too much money. There has been a couple blurbs lately stating that there is a chance he will be re-signed, now that his price is starting to drop.

Plus, he does have knee problems that might make him a liability in such a pass happy offense as Spurrier's. Great run blocker though.

[Guest Trevor]

Well forget that I said anything about the Skins still being interested in him....

Redskins | Still Seeking A Guard - posted at KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com)

23:25 PT: The Washington Post reports the Washington Redskins are still interested in signing another guard, but they apparently have ruled out out re-signing Ben Coleman or signing free agent Ray Brown (49ers).

[Art]

I really think the limitation there is just pass blocking ability. Coleman's knees make him an iffy pass blocker, though he's a crushing run blocker. Rod Jones, who has been a franchise level player at left tackle in this league, can pass block very well. Larry Moore even came out and said he prefers pass blocking. I've no real idea what type of offensive line system we'll run, but, with a spread offense, I keep predicting a bit of a zone scheme where it's more important to get in a guy's way on many running plays than to drive him back.

I'd be for signing Coleman because I'd prefer some more veteran ability at that spot than we presently have, though, Vickers may be a better "fit" for this offense than Coleman. Ray Brown is still the guy I'd most want to see there because he is a pass blocking guard from a team that had a similar offensive line scheme as to the one I envision we'll be running.

[bulldog]

the question you have to ask yourself about Vickers is this:

if he started 12 games for the Ravens last year and did a decent job, how come Baltimore didn't resign the 31 year old for reasonable dollars to come back in 2002?

and if he graded out well on film, why were no other teams interested?

I remember other players in free agency that were being signed early on that missed large chunks of last season with injuries or were backups on their previous teams.

but there Vickers sat, all the way through the draft.

My gut feeling is that Vickers is a #4 tackle in the NFL and a capable #3 guard.

He can come in and do a solid job of holding the fort for a few games, but is not the kind of player you want out there for 16 weeks.

The problem for the Redskins?

The player currently ahead of him on the depth chart, David Loverne, has almost no starting experience in 3 years in the NFL and was traded for basically a ham sandwich.

Now maybe Herman Edwards and staff just made a mistake by dealing Loverne in the wake of his turf battle with Dave Szott, but once again the GUT says that if Loverne was truly a prospect Edwards would not have jettisoned the player and would have stepped in as peacemaker.

After all Szott is 34, and as recent events proved, has been injury prone for much of the past 3 or 4 years of his NFL career.

[Art]

I see what you're saying Bulldog. You're saying if a guy is any good, why do they ever leave their other teams. Gotcha. I always knew Marshall Faulk blew. Ok, an exaggeration, agreed, but, the point is, players move from team to team all the time after doing a fine job. Do you think before Szott got hurt New York Jets fans were bemoaning the fact that they signed him for cheap because if he was any good he'd have stayed in Washington?

It's a flawed and unthoughtout argument you frequently make that if a player was any good, why isn't he with someone else. It just doesn't fit in many cases, no matter how well it may fit with Loverne . Perhaps Vickers wanted to come down this way because he's from the area and thought he had a better chance to start in Washington than he did in Baltimore. I don't really know. I don't really care. He's absolutely a good bargain signing who we all hope isn't forced to start either because of injury or, worse, because he's the best we've got. Nonetheless, he fits a need, offers playoff starting experience and can move around the line in need. I'm not sure what's wrong with such a move in your world.

[bulldog]

Art, if you want to stay in a dream world regarding the abilities of Mr. Vickers that is fine with me.

Dave Szott had personal issues regarding being close to his son in NY and also with his ties to Marty that signalled his departure from DC, irrespective of the interest the Skins may have had in resigning him.

I don't think the same can be said for Kipp. The Ravens have been bled dry by free agency in the offseason and if they had the chance to retain a player for a cheap contract that they felt was a solid starter (and that player knew he was in line to start) it is very unlikely that Mr. Newsome would have waived him off into the night :laugh:

let's face the truth here. Vickers was a last second move made because time was getting short and we had very little in reserve or as competition at the OG spot next to Chris Samuels.

if there was any heightened interest on the part of the Skins and ohter teams about Mr. Vickers' abilities on the field once his name showed up on the free agent list, he wouldn't have found it as difficult to find a new home as he did.

Other players like Sam Adams and Willie Jackson that remained in play late in free agency did so because they were wrangling over contracts and dollar bonuses, but they had suitors.

Mr. Vickers on the other hand, didn't appear to be getting much interest when the Redskins signed him.

And the size of his contract would lead anyone with a practical eye to the conclusion that he was not holding out for big contract, but merely for sufficient interest in his services to arise :laugh:

Nice try at putting me down but I don't think Mr. Vickers is the battle you want to try and win the war with :laugh:

[NavyDave]

Well his pass blocking wasnt spectacular last year either.

If we dedicate the draft to getting linemen we wont have to do this junk every year

[bulldog]

thanks, Dave I got a little long-winded. I think the term 'junk' describes the situation quite nicely :laugh: :mad:

[Braves On Warpath]

I keep going back to the PLayoff game in Tampa in 1999. Andy Heck went down and Kip Vickers came in. The Tampa D-Line ran by him soooooo quickly that he must have gotten sever neck strains. I really can't believe that he is going to be a starter although Guard is different from Tackle.

[Joey T]

Excellent analysis Art. May I add/restate:

"How well a player fit's in a system."

Some do, some don't.

Bill Billichik(sp) put the pieces together for the Pat's last season VERY well. No doubt, he had help from his assistants. Bottom line, a very fine job of coaching. How long has Bellichek been head coach of the Pat's?

SS and most of his coaches have no NFL coaching experience, but life has taught us that talent supercedes experience, in most cases anyways:laugh: I am a believer of SS and his motive of promoting himself. I believe he has perception and an overall view of what he has to do, ala Patton!

Great leaders demand perfection and I think SS is one of those leaders. Let's just wrap it up into a cozy little package and SS WILL get us above .500 this season, huh?

Lookit Mike Martz. He was an unheard-of QB coach with the Redskins. He left with Trent Green ala free agency. Now Martz has two superbowl victories under his belt! One with Vermiel and one of his own.

Go figure:laugh: Redskins management was so enamored with the "offensive genious of Norv Turner", they overlooked Mike Martz.

[NavyDave]

The last two years we were in position to get a blue chip guard in the first round and yeah I have accepted Gardner but would still love to see Hutch here.

We take Ramsey who might be a steal but we passed on Gurode and time will tell how he turns out bad I hope since he is with the cowpokes.

And now we have to deal with the donut of an offensive line AGAIN because we SHOULDNT draft guards in the first round because they are easy to replace in free agency

OK Somebody tell me where are the replacements that will remain here for 3 years?

Coleman would ve given us a year if his knees held up and we'd be back at square one again.

So yeah I'm tired of this junk every year; raft linemen and stop trying to make a splash.

[Posse81]

I think the main thing was the knees....

[W&M]

I know his knees are in poor shape, and that he doesn't have many years left ... and it's a shame, because he can be good.

But isn't it possible that the main reason we havne't approached him is because he plays the same position as Rod Jones. Both are the huge, road grading RG types ... and neither is built like the smaller, quicker LG.

[SonnyJ]

Originally posted by Joey T

Lookit Mike Martz. He was an unheard-of QB coach with the Redskins. He left with Trent Green ala free agency. Now Martz has two superbowl victories under his belt! One with Vermiel and one of his own.

When did the NFL decide to award last year's Super Bowl to the Rams? Did the Patriots cheat, somehow?:laugh:

[SonnyJ]

Originally posted by NavyDave

The last two years we were in position to get a blue chip guard in the first round and yeah I have accepted Gardner but would still love to see Hutch here.

We take Ramsey who might be a steal but we passed on Gurode and time will tell how he turns out bad I hope since he is with the cowpokes.

And now we have to deal with the donut of an offensive line AGAIN because we SHOULDNT draft guards in the first round because they are easy to replace in free agency

OK Somebody tell me where are the replacements that will remain here for 3 years?

Coleman would ve given us a year if his knees held up and we'd be back at square one again.

So yeah I'm tired of this junk every year; raft linemen and stop trying to make a splash.

Let's say that Ramsey turns out to be a merely solid, dependable, long-term solution to QB (like Steve McNair), but Gurode turns out to be an All-Pro lineman. In other words, Gurode turns out to be a superior player at his position than Ramsey is at his, I would still say that the Redskins made the right pick.

A solid QB is much more essential than an All-Pro guard. Of course, the ideal is to have a solid guard and an All-Pro QB.:cool:

[MarkPSkins]

NavyDave,

Hypothetically we drafted Hutch Last year and Gurode this year. That's two first rounders and two high profile second rounders on yout offensive line? two, three years down the road all these guys pan out to be probowlers (samuels is, Jansen is arguably) How exactly do you pay them and skill postion players as well??

You can't have your entire line made up of high draft choices and pro-bowlers, you wont ave any money to pay the other guys who actually score the TDs.

[Qcard]

Originally posted by Art

I really think the limitation there is just pass blocking ability. Coleman's knees make him an iffy pass blocker, though he's a crushing run blocker. Rod Jones, who has been a franchise level player at left tackle in this league, can pass block very well. Larry Moore even came out and said he prefers pass blocking. I've no real idea what type of offensive line system we'll run, but, with a spread offense, I keep predicting a bit of a zone scheme where it's more important to get in a guy's way on many running plays than to drive him back.

From Len Pasquarelli ESPN

The right guard, former Bengals starter and Rams backup Rod Jones, is moving inside from tackle to guard for the first time in his career. Jones is perennially overweight, has some problems with depression, and is too often off his feet. Still he is a better fit than what the Redskins have on the left side

Okay, I am a tad bit confused here. On one hand we have a very informed Redskins fan touting a questionable Redskins player "as playing at a franchise level in this league" (I am assuming the NFL).

Then we have a nationally known NFL analylist (Len) :puke: and :doh: on Rod Jones. Fatsquarelli's commentaries and in-depth analysis has fallen-off a bit since leaving CBS, but the difference in player describtion is unbelievable.

[bulldog]

I don't agree with Art on Vickers, but Jones has shown more in the NFL than Lenny has given him credit for.

Pasquarelli seems to be comparing Jones to a waiver wire pickup when in essence he is a quite solid player. No, he is not a pro bowler, but he did start games for the Rams last year at tackle and outside of one big gaffe we all saw in the Super Bowl, did a good job considering he is built to be an inside player.

Jones, 28, was sought after in free agency. the Rams wanted to keep him and the Carolina Panthers made him an offer as well, which I think exceeded the Redskins offer.

So, when Lenny writes up a paragraph on Jones and knocks him for the same troubles (coming to camp overweight) that other solid players like Sam Adams, Ted Washington, Flozell Adams, etc....do as well (but does not take them down for it) you have to ask where Len is regarding basic fairness to the player and his abilities.

[Art]

Q, you might want to go find the thread you're referencing to see how badly treated and educated you were. Further, my quote is not what you quoted. I said Jones has been a franchise level left tackle in the league. Has been is not is presently, which is how you've offered the statement. As for Lenny's take on Jones, oddly, his views have been very different as well, depending on when he's speaking. So, again, if you care to be further educated so as to better understand the game, feel free to see what happened to you in the other thread.

As for your ability to comprehend simple statements as you've seen them here, I can't help you further other than to simply point out your ignorance for all to see hoping that shame and embarrassment will straighten up what your teachers failed to succeed in doing.

[Art]

Bulldog, it is impossible to disagree with me based on what I said about Vickers. Here's what I said, "He's absolutely a good bargain signing who we all hope isn't forced to start either because of injury or, worse, because he's the best we've got. Nonetheless, he fits a need, offers playoff starting experience and can move around the line in need."

You have to completely agree with that. Obviously, I'm not, and we're not, hoping he is the starter, but, as a veteran player with starting experience and versatility moving around the line when needed, he fits the bill as a good, low-priced depth addition. If you disagree with that, well, there's not much more than can be said because we simply view value in far too different a fashion.

[PCS]

What's unbelievable Q, is that this the the second time you've posted something like this and yes, there is confusion, by you and Len P. I hate repeating myself. Here's the first thread you posted some of what you did here.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11036&pagenumber=2

You want unbelievable and confused? Here ya go.

Well Q, I'm certainly not going to speak for Art nor in replacement for him, however, since Rod Jones started his career in the NFL with the Bengals as a guard/tackle, I think I could say that Len P. may not know completely what he's talking about. Oh. And here is what Len P. said about the signing of Jones by the Redskins in April. Read carefully. Seems to be 2 different guys Len is talking about. Now, about how much he really remembers knowing.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasq...en/1362236.html

"Still trying to stabilize the interior of their offensive line, the Washington Redskins on Tuesday reached a contract accord with unrestricted free agent Rod Jones, a six-year veteran who started for the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI last season.

Jones, 28, visited with Redskins officials on Monday night and most of the principle elements of the deal were agreed to then. The remaining details were hammered out Tuesday and Jones signed a three-year contract worth about $4 million.

Although he has primarily been a tackle most of his career, Jones will start at guard for the Skins, the spot some pro personnel directors have insisted for years might be his best position. He will also provide Washington a proven veteran backup to its tandem of standout young tackles, Chris Samuels and Jon Jansen, as well as overall leadership. His in-line blocking strength should project well to guard."

Yes, he does mention the depression, but notice a fairly nice review from April.

As for Lovern, here is a draft summary of the lad. The Jets apparently weren't happy with his progress, (rumor). Though true he didn't start in his 3 years with the Jets, he apparently isn't all that bad either./

From CNN/SI

Grading System

David Loverne | OG | San Jose St. | WAC

Selected by New York Jets in round 3, pick 29 (#90 overall)

Ht Wt 40 BP SS LS VJ BJ Grade

6'2" 292 5.19 - - - - - 5.98

He has been all over the board playing OG and OT in his college career and he even started his career at University of Idaho. He is a tough guy with a good motor and he is a pretty solid fundamental player. He has good overall run blocking skills, plays with decent leverage and knee bend and does a nice job of staying on his feet and finishing the block. He has adequate, but not great range as a pass blocker, but is very effective when he locks on. He has more than enough AA to get by at the OG position, although he may not have the range as a pass blocker to be a pure OT. He is a guy with enough intelligence and intensity to be a candidate as a swing OL in the NFL. He is another guy that may start to sneak up the draft charts.

"Fatsquarelli's commentaries and in-depth analysis has fallen-off a bit since leaving CBS, but the difference in player describtion is unbelievable" You said it. And then some.

:doh:

[Utah]

After reading this, I thought I would chime in just alittle about maybe why guys are signed and maybe why guys aren't.

When you look at a lineman, you try to decide what his stregnths are and what his weaknesses are. Depending on what type of offense you run or as with the pros, when you get a high quality player on your offense you may change your offensive philosiphy, you try to put as many guys in your offense that will allow your team to be successful. You find guys that best fit your mold and your money.

For instance, when looking at lineman you try to figure out how good a blockers they are in various plays. Is he a good blocker in Sprint Pass protection, Dropback pass protection, Play action pass protection or Misdirection pass protection. These types of passes require different abilities. The first step and responsiblity of each position is different in each type of pass play.

Also, is he good at the various techniques used to accomplish his goals. Is the lineman good at high press or front blocking? Is he better at chop blocking? Can he handle bull rushes with the double fist? What about fire out blocking? In fact, is he any good at stunt blocking? How about this, is he any good at Draw blocking? Finally, can he work well with a players beside him as in the guard position or is he better suited for the tackle spot?

I think you guys will agree that all of these types of "blockers" are very different and require unique skills. However, when you are choosing your lineman and your researching who would best do that, each coach has things he is looking for because he will want to have some "butter plays" that can be used in any occasion. In other words, he wants lineman to fit his offensive philosphy.

The only way this is done, is to watch tape of a guy. Not one game. Alot of film on the guy when he has been a FA. Agents get the tape that isolates their players skills and they use it to market the guy and then after careful consideration on what it is the O is looking for, they decide if the guy is right for their system.

In fact, I know alot of coaches who worry about getting a Pro Bowl lineman through free agency. Why? Because they have been talior made in a particular offense that may not have lineman with the right skills to pull off what it is they are asking for. Tre Johnson would not fit well in the Rams offense because he is a power lineman who loves to make contact first. That isn't the the type of oline the Rams have generally run. Mind you, I don't have very much air time on the Rams but in the few I have watched, that is what I saw.

As for the media. Well, its always nice to read things in the paper,. but take it with a grain of salt. The worst thing about the media is they have their own agenda and it rarely allows them to actually be intelligent and report things as they are. In the end, their job is to sell newspapers, internet clicks or books. There is a reason why us coaches don't start our meetings off by discussing what the media said we did or didn't do. They have no idea.

[smith22]

Bulldog, I agree with you if I read the message in your post correctly. It seems that you were saying Vickers would be okay as a back up, but that you don't have confidence in Loverne and that you don't exactly cherish the idea of having Vickers start in his place.

Somehow, this all gets twisted around and Art thinks you are arguing about Vickers "value" to the team.

Here is what Art said:

I see what you're saying Bulldog. You're saying if a guy is any good, why do they ever leave their other teams. Gotcha. I always knew Marshall Faulk blew. Ok, an exaggeration, agreed, but, the point is, players move from team to team all the time after doing a fine job. Do you think before Szott got hurt New York Jets fans were bemoaning the fact that they signed him for cheap because if he was any good he'd have stayed in Washington?

So Art, are you arguing about his value as an acquisition or are you arguing about him being a good player who no one had any interest in?

[Art]

Smith,

I think I'm arguing a couple of things. Foremost, it is intellectually impotent to continue to make central in repeated arguments that if a guy was any good, why didn't he stay where he was. Beyond that, Bulldog and I have similar views on Vickers in that as a reserve player capable of filling in, he's a very fine signing. As a starter, equal worry would be shared. Accentuating that by pointing out to him that we're saying the same thing is the second, lesser point of this thread.

So, it appears you agree here with both Bulldog and I, though, I'm not yet fearful over the guard spot. Especially now with the rumored retirement of Brandt, we'll have to make some sort of move at this spot shortly, or very much hope someone shows a great deal of promise. Or, at least as much as Garmon showed, if not a great deal