Why I didn't blame Smoot and won't blame Cooley.

[HailfrmDEN]

Alot of people will want cooley, but he will stay a redskin. I think cooley will give up some money to stay here. Not say he wont be paid. Betts contract was good. Look at all the teams after him. I cant wait to see him and portis on the field together.

[Tarpon75]

Cooley needs to be locked into a deal as soon as possible.He fits perfectly and I believe he truly wants to be in Washington.As far as him being replaceable,can anyone tell me when the Skins had a tight end of Cooley's caliber.I don't think there is another one like him out there and if you found one how much would that guy cost on the free agent market?Hopefully the front office is learning and will not let guys like Taylor and Cooley get away.

[jrockster21]

The beauty of signing a guy like Rocky now is you can get him for a couple million guaranteed. Let him start for two seasons and it's $10 million if he does anything worth watching. Now, again, signing him really depends on what the staff feels his future worth might be to the team. They probably have a feel for how he'll do on the field when his time to play comes. If they think he's an answer, he's the kind of guy you can get now for very little and who could be a very big bargain in a few years.

Good point - although personally I'm against re-signing anyone until they've got at least 2.5-3 seasons under their belt.

Gotta love the Teddy KGB quote and how it so eloquently relates to football. The sooner we resign him the better.

:laugh: Glad somebody caught it!

Cooley can be replaced. I am not sure why everyone talks about him so much. He is not a Tony Gonzo. He does not have the speed. And he is not a physical freak.

I know he is that fun loving white guy who is a little corky. So fans will love him.

But those are not the type of guys u bust the bank for.

Please hand in your fan card on your way out. Thanks.

[The Consigliere]

I think you're right on target.Sean Taylor needs to be taken care of his upside is better than anyone we have and Cooley should be done before the season starts.:helmet:

The only problem is his drafting in the first place was a colossal mistake. When a team has neither youth, nor a great deal of talent on the DL, using a blue chip top 5 pick on a safety, and the enormous SB $$$ that entails (and the ridiculous second contract he'll command) is foolhardy at best. The only thing to recommend the pick was his talent, which is a very powerful argument, but not for a team lacking in legit talent on the line. We need to build the defense with the lines, and corners as our focus, not the safeties and corners as our focus as we have done. It's very telling that this team has sucked more or less since 1993, and yet since 1993, only one collegiate defensive lineman has been drafted on day one of the draft, Lang, ten years ago. Over the years I believe there were at least 30-40 players taken in those slots AND ONLY ONE WAS A DEFENSIVE LINEMAN. See the seeds of the problem there?

Why should we resign Taylor to a no doubt 20-25 million dollar Signing/Option Bonus when Safeties are cheap on draft day (usually the second best safety in any given draft goes somewhere between slot 20-45, hell even Ed Reed lasted 3x as long as Taylor in his respective draft) and rebuilding our DL and OL is 10x as important as retaining an undisciplined, not very smart, suspension waiting to happen luxury who admittedly has a ton of talent but not 1/50 the brains and dedication the man he was being compared to erroneously on draft day has and had (Ronnie Lott).

I agree that your general idea is sound, guys like Cooley, building block guys should be signed, this is how the Indians, in a small-mid market, built a contender that lasted from '94-'01 on a bottom tier budget. They found and locked up their "Franchise" players to affordable contracts early, and none of those contracts ended up being mistakes other than Baerga, and he was traded, an option the Redskins would also have if we make a mistake on a young franchise guy.

I just don't view Taylor as one of the guys, I see him as a luxury when I look at our lines and see nobody under 27, and the majority over 30 and either on their last legs, or rapidly approaching the last act of their career, and when I look at our corners, and even after the Smoot signing, don't really see anyone as legit, no doubt about it, long term answers there, and even at WR where everyone appears comfortable, we have one star, and two guys whove never even put up mediocre #2 numbers for a starter. And I haven't even gotten to our linebackers, or the fact that we may or may not have a single QB who can help us long term back there.

So I agree with your reasoning, I just see paying through the nose for a safety as a luxury that a team with our holes and problems can't really afford. I would LOVE to trade him for picks and/or young players.

[scruffylookin]

Cooley should never see free agency. He should have been the first priority last season and instead we resigned our backup runningback instead of our starting tightend. I just don't get it. It's nice to have Betts and all (when he's not fumbling and everything) , but I just don't think his value to this offense or this team is anywhere near that of Chris Cooley.

As for Sean Taylor, I would agree that he should be next but I don't think that he's going to be too easy to resign. He wanted to redo his rookie deal almost immediately after signing it. You know he feels like he's been underpaid from day 1 and he's going to be looking for a huge payday to recoup the money he's "lost". I just have this feeling that Sean Taylor is going to bolt once he becomes a free agent.

Cooley should be taken care of ASAP and JC would be next in line if he has a good season in 07. :2cents:

[Art]

Brilliant piece on Smoot, prescient piece on Cooley, silly rip on fans who indict a largely incompetant FO (the sole area in which they've consistently excelled has been maneuvering around the cap, on draft day they've been at best subpar, though better than the Pre-Gibbs years, an in FA they've been successful in one of the first three years, and along the way made many a braindead pay through the nose signing (Boonell, Patten (admittedly not pay through the nose), ARE, Lloyd, Arch etc).

In your own statement shows why the rip on fans is neither silly, nor off base. "Boonell" may have some positive enjoyment for you saying it, but, Brunell played poorly to start, then had a very good year leading us to the playoffs, followed by a fairly good year where he just couldn't overcome other weaknesses on the team. For his relative success here, you consider him a failed move by Gibbs. You cite Patten as well, who, apparently you feel the front office should have anticipated unforseeable injury and that they did not counts negatively toward them.

You suggest ARE was a braindead move when it solidified the punt return game and provided improving production throughout the year makes it likely you are not willing to fairly state concerns about the front office in a way that would be a benefit to others. On the one hand you acknowledge how skillful our front office is managing the cap, yet, you consider so many of the signings unsupportable pay without ever realizing you can't praise one and critique the other with any equity.

It likely calls into question what you think the contracts actually are. Do you read the first paragraph of media reports and believe these players sign deals for multiple tens of millions, or, do you smartly realize almost all the deals are largely for about $12 million over three years, built to allow us to manage the cap, release failed selections and retool with, hopefully, better picks by having the room to do so.

You seem blinded by large guaranteed money without ever showing recognition that the cap is not just guaranteed money, but, base salary as well, and, for as overpaid as you believe players are in guarantees, each player you mention is DRAMATICALLY underpaid from a base number. Yes. You see, most players would like to make more than the league minimum in base pay year after year. Without fairly evaluating the parts of a contract that allow the admitted brilliance managing the cap, you can't really be overly critical of how we write contracts that never seem to hurt us against the cap, likely revealing good work in every aspect of such management.

Further, it is painful to see you latch on to players you believe aren't good signings -- though some you mentioned were pretty good -- and fail to mention Moss or Portis or Washington or Griffin or Springs or others who were very, very good players for us. This would show you seem to think if our front office is not able to meet the unrealistic, unreasonable standard of perfection in every move, then they are a failure. That's why making fun of those who think as you do is not silly at all.

[SkinsNoles21]

Let's not get carried away here, a "lifetime" deal

yea your right...

I mean, the Skins get franchise qbs whenever we want so if Campbell were to throw for 3500 yards 20something tds and not as many picks...you should let him test the waters...oh wait...no....

YOU SIGN HIM UNTIL HE RETIRES.

[craig g]

Sean Taylor should easily be the first person we lock up.

[Smurf85]

Sean Taylor should easily be the first person we lock up.

I disagree Taylor has another 3 to 4 years on his contract.I believe Cooley's is up after this year.So Cooley is our biggest concern.

[ChampSkinsFanatic]

Sean Taylor should easily be the first person we lock up.

Its between him and Cooley, I think we could work with Cooley but Taylor's agents...:deal: :paranoid:

[wildbill1952]

What we're really talking about here is both sides of a negotiation. I'm sure the FO has thought about re-signing Cooley. I'm sure Cooley and his agent have thought about being re-signed. The FO has thought about replacing Cooley. Cooley has thought about making the big bucks by waiting for Free Agency.

On the other hand Cooley knows that he is one injury away from the end of his career. After all, it can happen to anyone. So he has to put the risk of a career-ending injury up against the possibility of making it through the season to become a Free Agent. Or, does he opt for guaranteed money now, albeit less than FA money, and not have to worry about that injury that takes it all away.

The FO considers his current value to the team (high) and the potential to find another TE of this caliber through the draft. (50-50) Both sides come into this with numbers in their heads. Both sides consider the options.

Intangibles on the players side also play a part. Would he rather be closer to family? Is he happy with the way his talent is used? Does he like his teammates? Are any of his teammates particularly close? Is the player married and have a need to be secure financially now or is he a bachelor who doesn't need long term security?

One way to figure out these things is to look at extremes. If we offered Cooley a Dockery contract would he re-sign? Obviously. If we offered him vet minimum and a one year deal would he re-sign? Obviously not. Reaching that point where Cooley and his agent accept the deal versus the point where he decides to take the inherent risks of his career to reach Free Agency is where negotiation comes in. The FO has to figure it out and Cooley, as all other free citizens do, can accept or reject it.

Do I want Cooley here? Yes. At what price? Tougher question. Less than Dockery and more than vet minimum, not that it's my decision. I'll hope the FO comes up with the right number to make it happen and I hope Cooley accepts it and stays a Redskins for a long time. But I have more important things to worry about.

[Killerbo]

What we're really talking about here is both sides of a negotiation. I'm sure the FO has thought about re-signing Cooley. I'm sure Cooley and his agent have thought about being re-signed. The FO has thought about replacing Cooley. Cooley has thought about making the big bucks by waiting for Free Agency.

On the other hand Cooley knows that he is one injury away from the end of his career. After all, it can happen to anyone. So he has to put the risk of a career-ending injury up against the possibility of making it through the season to become a Free Agent. Or, does he opt for guaranteed money now, albeit less than FA money, and not have to worry about that injury that takes it all away.

The FO considers his current value to the team (high) and the potential to find another TE of this caliber through the draft. (50-50) Both sides come into this with numbers in their heads. Both sides consider the options.

Intangibles on the players side also play a part. Would he rather be closer to family? Is he happy with the way his talent is used? Does he like his teammates? Are any of his teammates particularly close? Is the player married and have a need to be secure financially now or is he a bachelor who doesn't need long term security?

One way to figure out these things is to look at extremes. If we offered Cooley a Dockery contract would he re-sign? Obviously. If we offered him vet minimum and a one year deal would he re-sign? Obviously not. Reaching that point where Cooley and his agent accept the deal versus the point where he decides to take the inherent risks of his career to reach Free Agency is where negotiation comes in. The FO has to figure it out and Cooley, as all other free citizens do, can accept or reject it.

Do I want Cooley here? Yes. At what price? Tougher question. Less than Dockery and more than vet minimum, not that it's my decision. I'll hope the FO comes up with the right number to make it happen and I hope Cooley accepts it and stays a Redskins for a long time. But I have more important things to worry about.

Good point and I agree. However, I find it laughable that some fans see Cooley as all of a sudden a franchise TE and irreplaceable while Taylor could be let go if he wants a crazy contract. In my opinion Cooley is just a good TE and is replaceable and is not a franchise TE that you can build an offense around. Maybe some just don't understand the term of a franchise player being a player you can build your team around like Jlius Peppers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and the list goes on. Cooley isn't one of them and I say again is an average TE with good talent and a lot of heart, that I will give him.

[TheLongshot]

Nice post, Art, but I want to point out something different about Smoot's situation than Cooley's situation. In Smoot's 4 years here, he had 4 different D-coordinators and 3 head coaches. In that situation, who is going to know Smoot well enough to get behind him and say, "Hey, we need to keep this guy?" When Gibbs got here, the Skins were struggling to get enough cap room to franchise their other corner. When you are just new to a team, you are probably not going to go out there and encouraging extentions to players you don't even know yet.

Pierce probably had even more reason to leave. Same 4 D-coordinators and 3 head coaches, but spent most of that time on the bench, with an expensive free agent replacing him in the starting lineup and just mininum deals in his four years. This was the time for his big payday, and I don't blame him one bit for taking it. It is just too bad that the timing was bad for us on that one.

Maybe in all that, it shows a weakness in not having a GM. Course, a heathy organization doesn't have 4 head coaches in 5 years. If you don't have the turnover on top, you don't have the turnover in the rest of the roster as well.

Getting back to Cooley, I think he will get taken care of, in a similar fashion as Betts. Hell, all of the cap clearing that has been happening could be going towards that.

Jason

[fansince62]

agree that ANY player should be accorded due respect for trying to improve his situation financially. I just don't see that as a discriminator depsite all the "he shold restructure or should sign for less to be a true redskin"....BS.

agree that we need to keep team stars like Cooley/Taylor and key contributors to sustain the base.

never saw Smoot as a key player. never saw Smoot as a key contributor. definitely don't see Smoot as the "character type" it was rumored at one time Joe Gibbs favored.

[909997]

amen to that

[The Consigliere]

In your own statement shows why the rip on fans is neither silly, nor off base. "Boonell" may have some positive enjoyment for you saying it, but, Brunell played poorly to start, then had a very good year leading us to the playoffs, followed by a fairly good year where he just couldn't overcome other weaknesses on the team. For his relative success here, you consider him a failed move by Gibbs. You cite Patten as well, who, apparently you feel the front office should have anticipated unforseeable injury and that they did not counts negatively toward them.

You suggest ARE was a braindead move when it solidified the punt return game and provided improving production throughout the year makes it likely you are not willing to fairly state concerns about the front office in a way that would be a benefit to others. On the one hand you acknowledge how skillful our front office is managing the cap, yet, you consider so many of the signings unsupportable pay without ever realizing you can't praise one and critique the other with any equity.

It likely calls into question what you think the contracts actually are. Do you read the first paragraph of media reports and believe these players sign deals for multiple tens of millions, or, do you smartly realize almost all the deals are largely for about $12 million over three years, built to allow us to manage the cap, release failed selections and retool with, hopefully, better picks by having the room to do so.

You seem blinded by large guaranteed money without ever showing recognition that the cap is not just guaranteed money, but, base salary as well, and, for as overpaid as you believe players are in guarantees, each player you mention is DRAMATICALLY underpaid from a base number. Yes. You see, most players would like to make more than the league minimum in base pay year after year. Without fairly evaluating the parts of a contract that allow the admitted brilliance managing the cap, you can't really be overly critical of how we write contracts that never seem to hurt us against the cap, likely revealing good work in every aspect of such management.

Further, it is painful to see you latch on to players you believe aren't good signings -- though some you mentioned were pretty good -- and fail to mention Moss or Portis or Washington or Griffin or Springs or others who were very, very good players for us. This would show you seem to think if our front office is not able to meet the unrealistic, unreasonable standard of perfection in every move, then they are a failure. That's why making fun of those who think as you do is not silly at all.

On Brunell:

Bad SB $$$, bad trade (the third for him was way more than any other team was supposedly offering, and ended up costing the ammo we needed to get Cooley, which cost the ammo needed to get Campbell, which cost the ammo needed to get Rocky, which cost us a top 37 pick this year) bad player.

Just the Facts:

Putrid in '04, as bas as any redskin QB in memory.

In '05 he did not lead us to the playoffs, it's a beloved fallacy held onto by his supporters, Portis, the OL and the D brought us to the playoffs. In Brunells best games of '05, indeed his only quality games (Vs Seattle, @ Denver, @KC, Vs SF, @ St. Louis, Vs Dallas) he was 4-2. Props to him. The problem is, he was consistently subpar, to ghastly down the stretch when we needed him to perform, and other than two quality full game performances (the second Dallas, and Rams game) he actually did more to hurt the cause then help it down the stretch (horrible game at NYG in end of October, 2 picks, and 2 fumbles, but loads of yards and TDs in a ref assisted defeat to the Bucs, horrendous performances in the 2nd half against the Raiders and Chargers played a key role in both defeats (3 and outs were the word of the day), horrendous, torturous performance against Cardinals that would have insured no playoff birth if the defense hadn't bailed him out with a load of turnovers (which he kept giving back), horrendous performance against Eagles in the finale, horrendous in both playoff games.

In '06, he had some efficient dink and dunk performances mixed in with the typical ghastly Brunell before he went into the toilet as he always does.

Am I wrong about Boonell? Uh, no I'm not, even Gibbs, who couldn't bare to pull him in '04, or '05, or Theismann until injury made him in '85, finally pulled the trigger in November, and that was the final indictment since Gibbs is loathe to pull a vet for a youngster barring injury. Boonell has been subpar to awful in 2/3's of his starts here. Why is that acceptable? Boonell didn't lead us to the playoffs, he was dragged kicking and screaming there by the defense and Portis and the OL (though I credit him with nice 2nd half of the season performances against the Rams and the Cowboys, and sort of half and half performance against NYG (Crushing pick in that game, but he had the offense running well, so you could go either way in that game, he certainly was running the O better than he did against Oakland, San Diego, and Arizona in weeks preceeding that game).

On the topic of pay. SB/OB's are what matter. Contract structure matters to an extent in the sense that it details when a restructure, or a cut may be necessary. I'm not some fool that believes the 80 mill Clements signed for is real. 20+ is real, a huge chunk of that is funny money. My problem with the Brunell and Patten, as well as ARE and Lloyd and Arch signings were all differing. The Boonell signing bothered me on 3 levels. The first being that he was a done, and was automatically a threat to Ramsey's development despite his being done as a legit game to game starter in this league (in '04 I felt he could be a spot starter, but not a guy you could count on season to season, Jville agreed, and history has proven me right, his body hasn't been able to take the pounding, and his performance has shown that), secondly a third rounder for a guy that jville was going to release until Tampa and us showed interest was pure lunacy and a typical Gibbs II move (pay through the nose for an offseason option on someone elses roster/FA/draftee to insure that we get EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT NO MATTER THE COST), and thirdly he signed a deal for I believe around 7.5 mill in SB money. That's a huge chunk of change for a guy who really appeared to have at best 2-3 years left in the tank as a backup at best. Unfortunately he was even worse than I thought he'd be, far worse, making the SB money even stupider.

Pattens actual contract wasn't my issue. My problem was that in the '05 offseason Coles, and Gardner were sent packing. We acquired an unknown quantity in Moss (from '01-'04, Moss had had one complete quality season, and a portion of a second, he was a calculated risk that paid off handsomely, but at the time a huge risk), and we acquired in Patten, a guy whose never been a legit starter in this league. He'd been run off several other teams as they went in other directions quickly after acquiring him to address WR, emphasizing that Patten was not an answer at starting WR to any of them, so why would we bring him in as an answer in an offseason where we had no WR's we could definitively count on with confidence? I predicted he'd flop with us, he was a guy who topped off as 28-50 receptions, and 400-700 yards, but whose productivity appeared unlikely to excell on an unsettled team with so many question marks like our own. I didn't like that signing. I didnt like the ARE signing for the same reason, and while I didnt mine the Lloyd acquistion (he'd shown signs of potentially being a legit #2 option at WR), I did mind the contract we gave him for two reasons, #1 he hadn't earned it, and #2 it ignored the character question. Lloyd was run out of SF reportedly in no small part by his own teammates who reportedly couldn't stand him and demanded a move from the FO. To reward a guy like that with a contract that would make him difficult to release after one season was foolish to me. Indeed it is my feeling that he would be gone RIGHT NOW, if the team hadn't given him a five mill SB, and five mill OB, although the latter is easier to address. ARE simply has put it negligable numbers in this league. He's a leader, and a good lockeroom guy and I like that, but a 10 mill SB/OB for a guy who struggles to put up mediocre #3 numbers is just silly to me. I don't really care if he helped the punt return game. Quality returners who can catch 25-30 passes don't get 10 million dollars in SB/OB money, not by sane FO's, particularly preceeding this admittedly looney offseason.

The arch signing was just bizarre, I know the Prioleaux injury impacted what Williams could do with him, but if he was that inflexibile in what he felt he could do with Arch, the signing NEVER should have happened. There are more examples, but that is probably more than enough to listen to me whining about.

Lastly I referred to failures in 2 of 3 offseasons. The '04 FA haul was for the most part, a brilliant one, it was a cannon shot that potentially heralded in a dramatic rebuild, but unfortunately seemed to give the FO too much confidence. Springs appeared to be a great quick fix, though I was worried about his injury history (which came home to roost following his first year), Griffin was ripped, as a guy who'd tailed off after his rook year but played like a hero in year one for us. Not so good since, and while I'm inclined to rip him, considering his teammates on the line, I don't think that's fair. While the 2nd rounder was tough and aggravating and foolish to give up, considering Bailey was likely going to pull a Gilbert with us and force the issue, getting Portis for him was a quality return.

As for '05, Moss was the only move we made in '05 I was really enthused about. Rogers worried me (and right now he worries everyone) as a guy who didn't seem to have necessairly the off the charts skills necessary to get the job done at corner in this level, the Campbell trade up broke my heart, I hated that we didn't have the picks to get him straight up or in a minor deal, due to the Boonell/Cooley deals. Campbell is making inroads which makes me happy however.

I do not expect perfection, I simply expect the team to use FA, and the draft with sound reasoning, and discipline, and I expect them to get rid of a talentless hack that is rightly considered a joke by the rest of the league in Cerrato. I expected Gibbs to have seen the disaster that befell the franchise after picks were traded by the bushel, and drafts were botched by the decade starting in '84. For whatever reason, his love of veterans has seemed to have blinded him to this reality. I don't understand it. It seems obvious that when he retired the team hadn't pulled any Monks, May's, Manley's, Mann's, no Darrell Green's, no late round steals and undrafted studs like most of our Hogs were in those last drafts. The ruin this team fell into was a twin product of those awful drafts, and the awful coaching and lack of leadership of Norv (not to mention a mostly awful run of FA offseasons in that era, with the exception of some key guys like Allen, Harvey and Ellard), and this was compounded by the awfulness that continued in the years after he retired. He has come in, and continued the disinterest in the draft. Only this offseason has there even been a hint that he might be willing to change the approach.

Maybe you can explain it to me since you don't lack for confidence in your own opinions. Why is this so? I had assumed that he'd begin stockpiling picks for his last drafts to insure that the redskins would be okay without him when he left. He could see the problems the team had that echoed the problems of '93 (age and a lack of talent on both sides of the line). Wouldn't he want to collect picks so the team could slowly rebuild the lines with day one and early day 2 draftees to find starters and depth, wouldn't he reserve picks in case Campbell can't get it done, and Rogers is a flop (and we're left with no legit corners when he retired). But he hasn't done this. I know part of it is the win now approach. But I have hoped that he'd recognize that stockpiling assets to build necessary depth, and rebuild old lines would be essential even for success in '08, let alone when he was gone, but I only see him potentially holding onto picks for '08, he's squandered a bushel of picks in '04, '05, and '06 (although at least some of the players he got, Cooley, and Campbell namely, may end up being worth at least some of the cost) with some smart, and some foolish trades and here we sit, our second miserable season in 3, and that undefeated run to end '05 looking more and more like an aberration to me, but seemingly like the only true reality to you, which I find utterly bizarre.

It's also worth mentioning, that 3 drafts down the line, the only definitive starters that have been acquired are Sean Taylor, and Chris Cooley. Jason Campbell shows promise and may make it 3 in '07. Guys like Golston, Montgomery and Rocky may or may not prove to be quality starters or at least contributors, but in my view, all this does, is reemphasize that we are not pulling out value for value with our drafts, and drafts are essential way of building both depth, and filling positions with hungry and cheap players, part of the essential philosophy that has helped make teams like the Steelers and Patriots, perenial contenders, and us, a mediocrity in our best years and far worse in our lean years.

[moondog]

send this to the front office....

we gotta resign cooley...

IF campbell has a huge year this year...sign him a lifetime deal as soon as the season ends.

No joke, the FO needs to give him his money now, I don't really care how much they overpay him.

[Art]

Consig,

You took time to write a thoughtful, if highly contradictory and frequently silly post. Your repetition on Boonell doesn't give you weight, but, detracts from your views. You probably know that. Yet, you couldn't help yourself. In any case, let's evaluate something to determine where the failure has been with this team. The two choices are coaching or front office moves. Let's see what we come up with together.

We would be apparently better today as compared to 2003 at QB, running back, receiver (slightly due Lloyd's problems), tight end, defensive line, safety and corner (at least until we lose Springs). We are about the same at linebacker. Our offensive line is essentially the same minus Dockery and adding Rabach, so, let's say a small decline there at this point.

The point is it hasn't been our personnel department that has let us down. It's been Gibbs himself. I think he'd tell you the same thing. He lost touch with the players and allowed the situation to get out of control. It's as depressing a thing as there is for that man to have done so poorly in that area, but, there's no way around the fact that's our current problem. Fortunately I maintain lots of trust in the outcome of that area being able to be corrected.

You state the only definitive starters that have been acquired in the draft are Taylor, Cooley and Campbell the last three years. Let's say I might add Rogers to the mix, but, even without that, I'd ask you what that means and to compare it with other teams. New England, for instance, has acquired Wilfork and Watson as definitive starters. Mankins too I suppose.

How about Indy the last three years? Addai and Sanders as definitive starters. Chicago? Berrian, Vasher and Harris from the last three drafts would be definitive starters and they all came from two drafts ago. I won't spend forever on this, but, I suspect there are few enough teams in the league who can be said to have clearly definitive starters all that much higher than four or so from the last three drafts. About where we are. About where some very good teams are.

The difference might be that our "hit" rate is higher than the other teams because we've had fewer picks as we've filled more openings with generally good free agents or acquired players than other teams have been able to do. But, I can explain the relative disinterest in the draft.

If you're a team that has a third or fourth or fifth or sixth round draft pick, would you rather take a risk on signing a Matt Bowen or an actual sixth-rounder? If you have the means, why would you not take the chance on a guy who has already proven he has some NFL ability than to take a chance on a guy who's not shown anything? You MIGHT, doing so, miss out on the next big thing like Tom Brady. But, the guess is it is always better to take from a pool of talent that has PROVEN they can play in the NFL than to take from a pool of talent that has never played a down in the NFL.

IF you have the financial means to do so why would you not do so every chance you get? Gibbs likely came in here and saw he could afford to dip into proven players more than some teams generally can, and, as a rule, that's a better idea than not. You won't hit on all such players, but, you can land very good players with more regularity.

[kevinklein]

Didn't make much money? In comparison to other professional football players, maybe...but every single player is absurdly overpaid for what they do.

[The Sisko]

Great post as usual Consigliere. However, as I suspected it turned out to be a waste. You'll never change Art's mind with anything as useless as facts, reason and logic.

For the sake of argument, let's just suppose I agreed with Art that Brunell was a pretty good signing for us (and yes, I was swallowing my bile as I typed that). He still never addressed the issue that we overpaid for him both in $$$ and draft compensation. Of course, one might say that it was worth it to pay a premium to get THE guy:doh: we wanted. However, as I've tried without success to get Art to understand it a million times, I won't go into explaining the concept of opportunity cost to him again.

He goes on to point out that we're better at certain positions than we were in 2003 without addressing the issue of who was responsible for bringing in the players that needed replacing. Could it be our F.O. that Art fawns over all the time? Naaah. :no:

The only difference between us (before the return of Gibbs) and the Cards is that the Danny was willing to spend more $$ in his dogged pursuit of losing seasons, while Bidwell wanted to do it on the cheap. All the while, Art has extolled the "genius" of our F.O. in signing one bust after another.

Now, certainly I'd be the first to admit that we're a better team since Gibbs' return than before. Unfortunately, that's not saying much. In other words, we've managed to improve from a lousy team to a mediocre one. Great.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

I don't blame any of the players that sign with a new team for a big payday. We'd all likely do the very same thing.

These men put their health & life on the line. Think of the players who have been paralyzed, died from heat exhaustion/heart issues, broken their bones, taken dozens of concussions. Where is their retirement plan? Where is their medical plan? I bet you Joe Theismann's leg aches whenever the thermometer dips. But most aren't as lucky as Joey T.

Most don't end up on TV. A lot of lucky ones end up getting a car dealership. Many didn't invest their money wisely. Look at Timmy Smith. Last I heard the guy who once had the record for most rushing yards in the Super Bowl was in prison, for drug trafficking. I don't think he was doing it for the thrill of it.

If you take the average player's guaranteed money and divide it by the "average Joe"s career span, and adjust for the future value of present money, you get a gradient. On one end, ridiculously overpaid may not be far off. For most, would it be that much more than what you and I make? And I will be the first to admit that I do not put my body on the line on my job. These guys are not police, military, firefighters etc, but they are taking risks for our entertainment purposes.

If Cooley finds more $$$ elsewhere, I'll be happy for him. If he finds it here, I will be very happy for him, and be personally glad that I have his jersey and he's still wearing burgundy & gold.

[Art]

Great post as usual Consigliere. However, as I suspected it turned out to be a waste. You'll never change Art's mind with anything as useless as facts, reason and logic.

For the sake of argument, let's just suppose I agreed with Art that Brunell was a pretty good signing for us (and yes, I was swallowing my bile as I typed that). He still never addressed the issue that we overpaid for him both in $$$ and draft compensation. Of course, one might say that it was worth it to pay a premium to get THE guy:doh: we wanted. However, as I've tried without success to get Art to understand it a million times, I won't go into explaining the concept of opportunity cost to him again.

He goes on to point out that we're better at certain positions than we were in 2003 without addressing the issue of who was responsible for bringing in the players that needed replacing. Could it be our F.O. that Art fawns over all the time? Naaah. :no:

The only difference between us (before the return of Gibbs) and the Cards is that the Danny was willing to spend more $$ in his dogged pursuit of losing seasons, while Bidwell wanted to do it on the cheap. All the while, Art has extolled the "genius" of our F.O. in signing one bust after another.

Now, certainly I'd be the first to admit that we're a better team since Gibbs' return than before. Unfortunately, that's not saying much. In other words, we've managed to improve from a lousy team to a mediocre one. Great.

I'd listen to you more if you could explain the "one bust after another" when in reality, we've had very few "busts" and a high majority of hits. The problem with people like you is you have a hard time actually attributing failure where it's due. When Joe Gibbs wants something he doesn't get, you can believe I'll blame Dan Snyder. When Joe Gibbs gets everything he wants, and, more, almost everything he wants is a good move in the end, well, I won't blame Snyder. I'll blame Gibbs.

The majority of moves we've made have been good moves from a personnel standpoint. Gibbs has failed as a coach to put it together. Last year was a disappointing year mostly because it was so unnecessary to get to that state. But, the state we wound up was on Gibbs' failures as a leader of men, not as a personnel man, and that is with his worst offseason in close proximity.

The real problem is we're not a medoicre team. We have, when healthy, a Top 5 runner, Top 5 receiver, Top 5 tight end, Top 5 offensive line, and, prior to last year, Top 10 or better defense. This is a very good team made to be as abysmal and uncompetitive as any we've ever seen. We were WORSE in nearly EVERY way than ANY Spurrier team, despite dramatically more ability.

The failure is in one place.

As I've said, I can LIVE with that failure because I trust the solution will not elude the man responsible forever. I'm just able to allow the fact my hero in sports has failed and I am not so immature to think it's in ways where he's been successful.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

I'd say Top 5 runner, Top 10 receiver, Top 15 tight end, Top 10 offensive line, prior to last year Top 10 D.

One thing is for certain, in '06 we were ranked dead last in takeaways. Not just for the season, but fewest in NFL History, all-time.

ALL-TIME*

*in a 16-game season

[ALLWORLD]

Many fans have made comments about Smoot since his return that he left to "chase the money". He certainly did leave for more money than we paid, but, the measure of anger we, as fans, should work up for that in the case of Smoot and players like him is less anger than we should work up for other players we come across.

Here's why.

Smoot was a player who fell out of the first round. His rookie contract was modest in comparison to others. As fans, we identified Smoot, as we have Cooley, as a player who'd outperformed the value of his contract. As a player who deserved an early re-up. The team never did. And when his time came to be free, Smoot, having not made much money in four years, took as much as he could possibly make in Year 5. It was the mistake of the team, not a character flaw in the player, that led to the loss of Smoot.

Just as it will for Cooley if the team doesn't act soon. Just as it would have for Betts had the team not DRAMATICALLY overpaid Betts based on his performance to the point of his extension in his career, yet, what very quickly became an apparent bargain.

Many people have problems with how our front office operates. Most of those complaints are simply invalid worries of fools. The most significant flaw we have as a football operation is not identifying the "core" player sooner in his contract, and locking him up at prices that, for the time of extension are more than the player deserves, but, that turn out to be far less than he'd get if his progression remains in line.

This means players like Smoot then, Betts recently and Cooley now need to be resigned well before they enter a contract year. Players who drastically outplay their contract, who are young and popular and epitomize what we're about as a team, need to be identified more rapidly and solidified. You do that, and you find such players don't wind up being free until the end of their prime. At that point, they might take less to simply stay put. See Darrell Green as an example.

Right now there are few enough on the roster who deserve this consideration. Cooley needs money now. Do it NOW. We don't know enough about Rocky, yet, but, if the team believes he's the answer for the next four or five years, sign HIM NOW to a contract like Betts, which is more than he deserves, but far less than a contract for a consistent starter.

If we start doing this, while still enjoying the reasonably solid acquisition rate we have had in the past, we will start being able to really build on something. After this year will be too late to get a good deal on a guy like Cooley. But, Campbell might be the guy you identify next.

A frickin men :notworthy

Lets hope something gets done soon, re-up all the younger players. At least they did resign Sellers which I thought was a great move.

Im in fear of what this team will look like in a few years when we lose a lot of these younger dudes.

[Seabee1973]

At this point, if we offered Cooley the Redsins standard 6 years, $30 million with $10 million in bonuses, would he accept it, knowing that he could likely get a good amount more in free agency next year? I would like to think so, but who knows?

Furthermore, with that standard contract we gave Lloyd/Randle El/etc., isn't it essentially a 3 year deal and heavily backloaded? If we were to give Cooley a long-term contract, pay the man a good amount up front so we won't have to scramble in a few years reworking contracts or risk a Springs-esq situation.

To do that we would need to utilize the draft and let a few players play each year without renegotion of any contracts