Lang Will Be Tough To Resign

[Hersh]

Lang said in post game comments that he wants to be paid and most importantly that he really wants to go back to DE. That could be the deciding factor, unless Bruce is shown the door and Lang is promised a move back outside. IMO, it would be wise not to overpay for someone who had his only great year in his contract year.

[OrangeSkin]

I agree. Barber and Lang are going to be free agents after this season, and I doubt we'll be able to sign both of them. Kenard will probably be the tougher of the two to resign, because he didn't tear his ACL. I'd love to see him back though. A team player, all heart.

[Sarge]

The versitility Lang gives us would be hard to replace. In my view,it's time to redo Smith's contract and pay him for third down duty only. If he doesn't want to do that, see ya. Then we could pursue a good utility DT and move Lang back out to end. We need to resign him to a contract that will reward him for this years play, but will allow us the flexability to ditch him if he gets too happy with his new contract, a la Stubblefield.

------------------

Aim High...Redskins!

[OrangeSkin]

Bruce will probably retire, or at least I hope he does. I don't think he's the biggest fan of Marty. Then we can move Lang to DE, and draft or pickup a DT in free agency (Tony Siragusa)?

He's said repeatedly he wants to stay in Washington, so he might take less money to stay here, if he can move back to DE.

[bulldog]

In my mind there is no debate here. Lang, at 275, is not suited to playing DT for the balance of his career. At most it was a one year compromise because we couldn't make all the changes we wanted given the time and cap constraints.

In addition we have a pair of defensive ends that totaled just 7.5 sacks in 2001 after getting 22.0 in 2000. Smith is 38, Coleman will be 33.

To resign Lang and promise him a switch to end to me doesn't appear to be such a hardship.

Let's see......we have a need at end and a player we know has good work habits who has NFL skills to play the position.....and he is likely to resign here for less than other teams may be offering...............

so once again, where is the debate?

If Smith wants to continue the fantasy that he is still an every down player in the NFL, it is one he can continue on his own somewhere else.

He is a part-time pass rusher if he wants to extend his career, it is that simple.

[redman]

Regarding Bruce's future, you might find this interesting:

Redskins | Smith Undecided - posted at KFFL (http://nfl.kffl.com)

January 6, 2002 15:41:03 PT According to the Associated Press, Washington Redskins DE Bruce Smith said he wants to talk to owner Daniel Synder about the team's future direction before Smith decides whether to retire or return for an 18th season.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[GURU]

Lang would be a tough loss. His energy and versatility would be dearly missed. I know he wants to return to end, and that's his ideal position. But truthfully, he's done a more than credible job at DT. He has a ton of tackles at that position. I bet you'll find he ranks right at the top of the league in tackles for DTs.

I agree, that signing him will be tough. I still think every effort should be made, though. He's going to have to get paid as a legitimate, contributing starter.

Finding him more time at end ain't a bad idea, but I wouldn't promise him a starting spot there next season unless Bruce Smith decides to retire early on. The thing is, Smith counts $5 million against the cap whether he plays or not. The thing is, after the 2002 season, you CAN promise Lang a starting slot at DE.

I believe the best approach to next season is to re-sign Lang and start him at DT, again. Try to find a real good pass rushing DE prospect, maybe in the 1st or 2nd round of the draft. And either sign another runstuffing DT at a reasonable price in free agency or lower in the draft. Then, what you do is rotate the hell out of these guys during the season. The starters remain the same. Lang rotates between tackle and end on running downs, plays tackle on passing downs. Our young DE prospect rotates with Coleman and Smith on occasion to keep them fresh, and he becomes a designated pass rusher frequently, all the while gaining experience without too much pressure. And the 3rd DT can rotate with both Lang and Wilkenson to keep them fresh.

Re-signing Lang will mean an unusual amount of money tied up in the DL for one season. Some may question the wisdom of that. But I think it would be ideal because you keep your best players as well as introduces a little youth. Smith retires after next season for a minimal cap hit. Coleman will retire a year or two after that, probably. In the mean time, we have young bucks learning to play from real pros, keeping them fresh, and making for nearless seamless transition.

It might be a tough sell. You have to convince both Lang and Smith that it's the best thing, and then you have to be prepared to pay Lang.

There's a lot to consider, but I'd really try to keep this group together and augment them with a couple of young players with great potential.

[Hersh]

The question is how much is too much for Lang? Even though he says wants to stay, I wouldn't equate that to him staying for less money than he might otherwise get from another team.

[bulldog]

let's not get too carried away. While Lang has done well this season as an undersized DT, he is not Michael Strahan heading into free agency.

The same concerns we have with Lang are ones other teams will have as well. Lang last played end regularly in 1999.

He has yet to PROVE that he can hold down an end spot at a high level for 16 games.

Without that proof and unwilling to play DT, Lang is going to have to get teams to take him on faith.

That is going to mean less up front dollars and more incentives. That is the kind of deal we should be able to match if it is within range.

We better than any other club truly know what Lang's abilities are.

There should be no fumbles here. Either we think Lang is capable of playing on the outside and make a commitment or we walk away and let him go.

No more fuzzy math, please.

[indyskinsfan]

Bruce may be graciously bowing out of the starter role of DE to make way for Lang, thus impacting Smith's pay and playing time as a backup.

So it's only wise to concede to help the team, by allowing a younger, faster DE to move in your old spot, while you mentor him some. Smith understands now and Darrell, I believe, has talked to him about it.

[GURU]

Good points, bulldog.

I don't think anybody is talking about Strahan-type money.

I do think that Lang has increased his worth this season, though. I think he demonstrated his talent, and that he is a better-than-average defensive lineman. I will stress "DL" rather than either end or tackle.

He just may be more valuable to the Redskins than anyone else, too. How much do you pay a better-than-average DL, especially when he has demonstrated that he is a valuable contributor in your own system and can legitimately start every position on the DL? Would you let him walk if someone offered him a contract averaging $3 million a year? I dunno. That seems fairly reasonable for a guy just entering his prime.

But it gets stickier. What if someone offers him $4 million a year? Sounds like a lot, but look at what guys like Warren Sapp and Michael Strahan can command on the open market--at least TWICE that. Isn't Lang at least half as good as those guys?

It's a tough call, but you have to keep your eyes to the future. You have to ask how tough it will be to replace Lang. And you have to ask, even if it looks like you might have overpayed him initially, if his contract looks out of line after Bruce Smith and Marco Coleman have left.

So no, you don't pay Lang like Michael Strahan. It's doubtful anyone will. (You never know sometimes, though) But you will have to pay Lang, and I believe it will be worth the investment in the long run.

[ by GURU on January 06, 2002.]