SI's Don Banks: ANOTHER 'Skins bashing.....

TC4 · March 11, 2003

As the thread title says, you all know the drill:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/don_banks/news/2003/03/11/banks_insider/

'Skin deep

Personnel men unimpressed by Washington's spending spree

Setting a pace of activity that no one else has cared to or been able to match, the Washington Redskins have received a bevy of good reviews regarding their much ballyhooed free-agency plan of attack. The names and signings have come in waves, dominating the headlines in the opening 10 days of free agency.

Everywhere you look, there's another account of how the Redskins' front office developed a plan to "identify and attack" in its offseason shopping spree, beating teams to the punch by acting quickly and decisively. Owner Daniel Snyder, cell phone, notepad and calculator in hand, has been portrayed as a walking, talking, private-jet-flying, cash-dispensing negotiation machine, wrapping up deals as fast as his speed dial allowed. Again and again, credit has been given to the Plan, the Plan, the Plan.

Last week, Snyder even went so far as to tell the Washington Post, "I hate the [bleeps] who said we didn't have a plan. We had a plan. We're executing it now."

Hey, it's great to have a plan, and even better to execute it crisply. But in the end, the beauty of any plan is only apparent if it ultimately leads to success. That's where Snyder's track record doesn't inspire confidence.

After all, the Redskins had a plan in 2000 as well. That year, despite being the defending NFC East champions, the plan in Washington was to collect big-name stars like they were so many football cards. Hired guns like Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier and Jeff George were brought in, with disastrous salary cap consequences and ho-hum 8-8 results on the field.

In 2001, the plan was to let new head coach Marty Schottenheimer handle everything, trusting that his proven methods would produce success. That approach lasted a year as well, again with 8-8 results.

Then last season, the first of the Steve Spurrier era in D.C., there was yet another plan. This time, the strategy of choice was to spend on defense, adding defensive coordinator Marvin Lewis and veterans like Jeremiah Trotter, Jessie Armstead and Renaldo Wynn, and to go cheap on offense, bringing in a boatload of ex-Florida Gator skill position players who had kicked around the NFL. Trust us, we were told, guys like Jacquez Green, Reidel Anthony, Chris Doering, Willie Jackson, Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews can still play.

Turns out, they couldn't play. At least not well enough to earn a second season in Washington. Not after they had so much to do with the Redskins' disappointing 7-9 finish in 2002.

So where does that leave the Redskins as the 2003 season looms? Staring at a fourth different "plan" in four years, one that seems to be trying hard to split the difference between 2000's failed free-agency extravagance and the relatively modest bargain-basement expenditures of last year.

As one league personnel director said: "You get the feeling with the Redskins it's, 'Let's try this. That didn't work. Let's go this way. That didn't work. OK, let's go to the middle of the road and try that.' What they're doing is drawing a lot of media attention and creating a buzz with the fans, but the proof is going to be in the pudding next September. That's when we'll find out if this plan worked."

So how much better are the Redskins for going out and acquiring 13 new players -- which will be their total haul if their offers to restricted free agents Laveranues Coles, Chad Morton and Matt Bowen aren't matched -- and committing themselves to more than $31 million in signing bonuses?

Will they be markedly improved, or only marginally? We put that question to a handful of personnel men around the league, asking them to analyze the likely outcome of Washington's offseason overhaul.

Here are excerpts of their position-by-position analysis of the Redskins' moves:

Receiver: The biggest splash of free agency for the Redskins was giving Coles, the Jets' best receiver, a seven-year, $35 million offer sheet that includes a $13 million signing bonus. New York is not expected to match it and will instead receive Washington's first-round pick, No. 13 overall, in compensation.

Opinions were divided over the Redskins' decision to land a No. 1 receiver in free agency, rather than supplement the position behind third-year veteran Rod Gardner in the draft.

"If they could just turn in Coles' name in the draft, they'd do it a second," said a veteran personnel man. "They're getting a No. 1 quality player. It's not like they're not getting a one. Last year, the No. 13 pick in the draft, Donte Stallworth [receiver taken by New Orleans] ... got about $8.5 million in guaranteed money, so in essence that pick this year was going to cost Snyder about $10 million in guaranteed base and bonus.

"For an extra $3 million, he bought a finished product and a proven No. 1 receiver. You've got to be happy with that. You get a veteran player now and fill a huge need."

But another veteran personnel man believes the Redskins paid a premium price for Coles without getting a premium player. "They're not getting David Boston, or Terrell Owens, or Eric Moulds, or Isaac Bruce, or Randy Moss," he said. "I don't think Coles is a No. 1 receiver. I think he's a No. 2 at best. There's not much difference between [ex-Redskin receiver] Derrius Thompson and Coles in my opinion. Put Thompson with the Jets last year and he would have caught 80 balls.

"Remember, somebody has got to catch the balls, but that doesn't always make a team's leading receiver a No. 1 receiver. I'm not diminishing Coles' ability, but he's not a $13 million receiver. It's just that Gardner and Thompson aren't Spurrier-type receivers. They're bigger and more physical, and he likes the smaller, quicker guys."

Running back: Washington's trade for former Rams running back Trung Canidate didn't cost them much -- a fourth-round pick in 2004 and David Loverne, a guard they were going to cut anyway. But the move still left several league personnel men scratching their head.

"I don't know what they expect to get out of Trung," said one source. "It's hard for me to understand that one. The way I look at it, if he couldn't succeed playing in that offense, with that talent around him, on that fast track in St. Louis' dome, how's it going to be any different playing in Spurrier's offense outdoors on grass?"

Said another talent scout: "To me, Canidate's just a straight-line runner, and I don't know if that fits the Redskins' offense. Lamar Gordon beat him out for the backup job in St. Louis this year. I just don't think they got better there after releasing Stephen Davis. I think [holdovers] Ladell Betts and Kenny Watson are both better than Canidate."

While accepting Spurrier's logic for releasing Davis, a third personnel man questions whether Washington now has anyone who can run effectively in the red zone.

"They're going to try and use Trung in space, on screens and draws and swing routes," the personnel man said. "Which is all well and good until you get in the red zone. But I knew that Steve didn't want to play with a big back, gaining 1,200 yards per season. That's not him. He gets bored with that. He wasn't going to have the kind of offense that Davis needs to play in."

Guard: The position was easily the Redskins' most glaring need, and they proved it, signing two starters and two backups in a matter of three or four days. Ex-Jet Randy Thomas was the big-ticket item, garnering a seven-year, $27.6 million contract that included a whopping (for a guard) $7 million signing bonus. Ex-49er Dave Fiore is the other projected starter, with Lennie Friedman and Tre' Johnson signing cheap, one-year deals.

The consensus? "They're much better," a veteran personnel man said. "But then again, they were playing with turnstiles last year, so they had to get better."

Said another personnel evaluator: "They got the best guard in the market in Thomas, and if Fiore can stay healthy he's an upgrade. Compared to what they had, they're markedly better at guard."

Not everybody was quite so taken with Washington's work at the position. "They only got one player, and that's Thomas," a personnel man said. "Fiore is at the end of the line. Tre' Johnson can't play any more and Friedman is a forever backup. They got some names, yeah, but they only added one player who can definitely be considered an upgrade."

Defensive line: Washington lost a quality run-stuffer in Daryl Gardener and a decent young talent in Carl Powell, replacing them with the hard-working Brandon Noble and the inconsistent Regan Upshaw. None of the personnel men we spoke to consider the Redskins' line upgraded.

"They were probably wise in not giving Gardener a long-term deal, given his track record," one league scout said. "But Noble's not that hot of a guy. He's a try-hard guy who will make some plays against the run, but he gives you virtually nothing by way of pass rush. Upshaw is too up and down for me. At best you could argue that they broke even."

Said another personnel evaluator: "Noble for Gardener? They're not winning anything there. And Upshaw does little for you, too. That's a net loss."

A third added: "I think it was a big mistake to let Powell go. He can play inside and outside. Upshaw is streaky and long in the tooth. I like Noble, but you can't say he's an upgrade over Gardener."

Special teams: Return specialist Chad Morton is the key to improvement here. If the Jets (and by the way, I can't wait for the Jets at Redskins Thursday night season-opener next September, which won't lack for story lines) match Washington's five-year, $8 million offer sheet and retain Morton, that would be a blow to the Redskins.

"The guy's a good player," said an AFC personnel man who saw Morton in action this season. "He changes field position for you. When you play the Jets, their special teams play is part of their talent."

But personnel experts weren't as sold on the Redskins signing away the Jets former kicker, John Hall. While he's better than the revolving door that Washington has had at the position the past three years, Hall doesn't inspire confidence, they said.

"Hall is going to be grossly overpaid," said a personnel man. "He's not a consistent enough kicker. He's at like 73 percent. His kickoffs are good, but not many of his field goals seem to go straight."

Said a league scout of Hall: "I liked him a lot three years ago, but now he's on the decline. He's an upgrade for them, but they could have done better."

Quarterback/overview: The irony of Washington's offseason thus far is that despite overhauling about a quarter of its roster, nothing will impact the 2003 season as much as the development of second-year quarterback Patrick Ramsey, who has been crowned the team's offensive leader despite rather uneven results in his five starts as a rookie.

Redskins fans have seen virtually no stability at the game's most important position since Brad Johnson's Pro Bowl season in 1999, and the turnover continued in part with the signing of backup Rob Johnson, who will replace both Wuerffel and Matthews.

"It all comes down to Ramsey," said a personnel man. "They can make all these moves, but if he's not quite ready to get the job done in his second year, it all goes up in smoke. It won't matter if he has Laveranues Coles with him or not. Ramsey had his ups and downs last year, and I expect he'll have the same kind of experience at times this year. It won't help him that he doesn't have a veteran No. 1 running back behind him."

Said another personnel man: "Even if you like all their moves, they're depending on getting a lot out of Ramsey next season. It all falls back on him, because this is a quarterback league. We're all in trouble if our quarterback doesn't perform, but that's really true in Washington."

Where does that leave the Redskins, who have made the playoffs just once in Snyder's first four years of ownership, the one season (1999) in which Washington didn't follow some dramatic new plan? Improved, but only marginally, say the personnel experts we interviewed.

"What they've done is a lot of fluff and not much substance," said a veteran talent evaluator. "They're still in that 7-9 to 9-7 range. Unless Ramsey turns into Marc Bulger or Kurt Warner, I don't see anything that has them challenging the Eagles for that division.

"They may win nine games if the ball bounces right for them. But I think the Cowboys might end up going by the Redskins, and New York looks about the same. Washington hasn't moved anywhere significantly in that division with all of this.''

Other personnel men agreed with that assessment, saying Washington looks like it will hover near .500 for the fourth consecutive season.

"They improved their personnel, but their record might not be all that much different," a league scout said. "I don't see them going to 11-5 or 12-4 on that talent. They lost Marvin Lewis as their defensive coordinator, and they still have some holes on their defensive line and in the secondary. It looks like 8-8 or maybe 9-7 to me. More of the same.''

In Washington, more of the same would again prove a point: The Redskins in the Snyder era have been long on plans, and short on patience. Maybe this time, the plan is to learn that lesson.

jimster · March 11, 2003

gee, you mean a personell guy from another team doesn't like that we're going after the players his team wanted and therefor calls us a .500 team

waaaa:cry:

ljer · March 11, 2003

Can't find much to argue with in that article.

Art · March 11, 2003

The article outlines what the Redskins have done. Then, it sets out to address whether the Redskins have improved just marginally or markedly. Here's the premise of the article.

"Will they be markedly improved, or only marginally? We put that question to a handful of personnel men around the league, asking them to analyze the likely outcome of Washington's offseason overhaul. "

So, the assessments begin at receiver, where they don't bother to address the improvement really, so much as the wisdom of the free agent or if it would have been better to get a draft. As much as the one guy tried to say Thompson and Coles were somewhat equal in talent, the fact is, that's ridiculous and even he admitted Coles is more what Spurrier needs in his offense. So, the answer is, the Redskins would be markedly better, but, that's not what they spoke about. They spoke about whether it was better to go in the draft or as a free agent.

On running backs they wonder if Canidate is better than Davis. Well, no, he's probably not. But, in this system, he may well be, and all he has to be able to do is go for 820 yards to surpass Davis. Further, one guy even says both Betts and Watson are better than Canidate. Great. The question is whether any of our backs can emerge and surpass 820 yards rushing. Probably so.

On guards, the assessment borders on the absurd. Tre was the starter at the end of last year. He's now no better than the third and perhaps the fourth player at the position. You can think Fiore is done all you want. He's better than Loverne. I'm not even sure what some of these comments are supposed to mean. They call Friedman a "forever backup". Two things strike me. He started eight, then 14 games for the Broncos very sound line. Second, he's a backup in Washington. Is it crazy to have a backup signed to be a backup? People are just dumb.

On the defensive line, it's true, we aren't better now. Maybe with the right draft picks. But we aren't now. However, the comments are not valid because one guy doesn't even know how old Upshaw is.

On Hall they say he is clearly better than what we've had. Why continue talking then? Is Hall an improvement? Yeah. They said so. Is he the best kicker in the game? No. But, who said we were signing the best player at every spot?

The complete lack of brains displayed by some of the quotes smells of people only to happy to take pot shots hidden behind not having their names mentioned. Yes, the Redskins have replaced. The Redskins are markedly better. And, they are right, none of it matters if Ramsey isn't too.

G-Town · March 11, 2003

Sounds like a great pickup to me. At first I thought we were paying way too much but this statement is very true. NICE

"If they could just turn in Coles' name in the draft, they'd do it a second," said a veteran personnel man. "They're getting a No. 1 quality player. It's not like they're not getting a one. Last year, the No. 13 pick in the draft, Donte Stallworth [receiver taken by New Orleans] ... got about $8.5 million in guaranteed money, so in essence that pick this year was going to cost Snyder about $10 million in guaranteed base and bonus.

"For an extra $3 million, he bought a finished product and a proven No. 1 receiver. You've got to be happy with that. You get a veteran player now and fill a huge need."

bulldog · March 12, 2003

1. Ramsey was a rookie in 2002. He was supposed to be 'uneven' in his performances as he learns. Funny, everyone seems to hold out such hope that Carr and Harrington are really going to put it up a notch in 2003, yet Ramsey doesn't seem to get the same benefit of the doubt despite competitive skills. Surprised?

2. I agree that Canidate may not be the starting running back on this football team. Does that mean it was a bad trade?

If Davis had left and Betts had been named the tentative starter, who could have argued the team didn't need a speed back to come in and play on third downs as a change of pace?

If Canidate comes in and catches 40 balls and stretches the defense for some big plays he will have been more than worth Loverne and a #4 pick.

3. Carl Powell is NOT young. He is 29 years old .On the other hand, if you are going to say that Powell is YOUNG, then how can you call Regan Upshaw OLD at 27? :laugh:

Just a little bit of inconsistency here.............

4. Hall is supposedly washed up at 29? A lot of kickers with a strong leg actually tend to improve as they mature and gain better accuracy and control. Unless I haven't read the record correctly, I didn't see where Hall suffered an injury or other event that would cause a deterioration in his abilities at this age.

The other factor here is the fact Hall has been kicking in a wind tunnel at Giants Stadium for the Jets. I'm sure his stats would look a lot better if he had been kicking inside in St. Louis or Minnesota

5. Critics want to have it both ways on Coles. If the Redskins didn't sign him to an offer sheet, they would have said that retaining him was Job #1 for the Jets in the offseason because of his age (25) and productivity. But because he is going to the Redskins all of a sudden there are doubts he can be a lead receiver?

I missed the film session where it was explained to me that Wayne Chrebet turned into Jerry Rice or Marvin Harrison.

The truth is Pennington and Coles were a good pairing in 2002 and THAT was what made the Jets offense dangerous

As to comparisons, Coles is 25 and healthy. Boston has had injury problems and would not have been as good of a fit with Gardner on the other side.

As to the others, I would take Coles at 25 over Isaac Bruce who is going to be 32 years old this offseason.

Moss and Owens were not available, so the reference to Coles not being on their par as established gamebreakers is irrelevant.

The proper comparison is Coles vs. the other receivers the Redskins could have signed in free agency and the ones they could have drafted at #13

6. According to one scout Fiore at 28 is 'finished'? He missed time last year due to injury but has anyone with a medical title indicated that his injuries are chronic and ones he can't rehab and come back from?

Terry Allen came back from 2 ACL injuries to rush for 1,000 yards here. I think Fiore will be fine

7. Criticisms of Tre Johnson as 'no longer capable of starting' and Friedman as a 'forever backup' ignore the point that BACKUPS are exactly what these players were signed to be :laugh: :cool:

And technically Banks' discourse and experts' quotations are incorrect because Friedman DID start for the Broncos, playing in more than 10 games for the club in 2001.

Sounds like two upgrades on Stai and Vickers to me. But I have never been a line coach in the NFL now have I? :doh:

jkam · March 12, 2003

Derrius Thompson would've caught 80 balls in the Jets offense? Please. If Derrius gets as good as he can be I suspect he's a 50 catch 650 yard receiver. Coles caught 89 last year for almost 1300 yards. He has 4.35 speed. He could possibly be the next Marvin Harrison. I'm glad that scout doesn't work for us!!

carlsbadd · March 12, 2003

I laugh at the fact that we are only marginally improved, and none of these guys has played a down in burgandy and gold.

bubba9497 · March 12, 2003

Who cares what a sports writer thinks...

the proof is in the pudding.. lets wait and see how well the Skins finish the next couple of years before we decide if the "plan" works.

The so called "experts" really kill me, if they know so much why are they hiding their name? Plus let's take a look at what their team's record was over the past couple years. Take a guess how many Superbowl winners we would find??

People who constantly criticize others usually are trying to compensate for something they lack.... :rolleyes:

Skins26 · March 12, 2003

That article is unbelievable. Its amazing how fast they go from saying a guy is one of the top WR's in the NFL to saying he's a #2 AT BEST. Just cause we got him. I also find it amazing that as these guys say we will be average next year why they would spend all their time evaluating our offseason moves and not spending time on fixing their own team.

The only guy who had any kinda of numbers or facts to support his statements was the guy who gave us positive reviews about how we just paid 3 mil more for a finished product with Coles and you gotta be happy with that. All the other guys just said uh yeah hes um inconsistant.

AND THEY CALLED CARL POWELL A YOUNG TALENT!!!!! WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE GUYS GM'S FOR CARL POWELL IS OLD AND A BACKUP FOR LIFE except with the bungles

jimster · March 12, 2003

like I said -OTHER teams personell guys who DIDN't get these players

The Wicked Wop · March 12, 2003

You always know where articles are going when they say personnel people of other teams, but neglect to name the teams or the people. Regardless, it is pretty amussing hearing them bash us saying that we basically havn't upgraded. Apparently we are only upgrading if we sign the greatest player at every need position that ever played the game, I'm sure than they would say we still overpaid them and it really isn't an upgrade. Fact is the skins did sign alot of players that still have things to prove....but every player in the league has something to prove these days. Yes its alot of money in signing bonuses, but these are players who are young and have the ability to play out their entire contracts....not hasbeen players hoping for one more great season and a superbowl ring. Everybody assumes when they are signed that the skins are in cap hell, but do these critics now precisely the skins plan or all the cap manuevering they can do, or do they mention the dead cap space this season that will be non-existant in future seasons. point blank the answer is no and it will never be yes, so i really guess we have to get beyond it and hope for the best....as does every other team in this league, but atleast were trying.

Art · March 12, 2003

I wouldn't doubt the guy who said Thompson is as good as Coles is a scout for Miami who is trying to help sell fans down there on their moves .

Skins26 · March 12, 2003

Nothing will help Miami sell tickets!

Or win in December:laugh: :laugh:

Stricknine · March 12, 2003

Originally posted by jkam
Derrius Thompson would've caught 80 balls in the Jets offense? Please. If Derrius gets as good as he can be I suspect he's a 50 catch 650 yard receiver. Coles caught 89 last year for almost 1300 yards. He has 4.35 speed. He could possibly be the next Marvin Harrison. I'm glad that scout doesn't work for us!!

I too thought that was a hilarious statement. Derrious couldn't catch 80 here, but could in NY? I mean its not like we throw the ball anywhere as much as the Jets do right. I knew Banks or somebody at SI would come out with something like this. Wait til Dr. Z puts his 2 cents in. He loves the Jets.

TankRizzo · March 12, 2003

Does he work for profootballtalk.com???

The Sisko · March 12, 2003

I think it was the Tuna who was quoted as saying something to the effect that you generally get a record that is consistent with your talent level. It appears that we've had .500 talent over the past few years. We've now significantly upgraded three (WR/OG/K) of our weakest positions from last season with only one loss of consequence (Gardner). In addition, we've also made improvements to more minor areas of weakness as well.

IF we get Coles, I'll call next season this way. It takes us a while to get our sea legs under us and we start out 4-4. After the initial "break in period" by our new players and a young QB we finish strong at 10-6.

Bank on it dude.:thumbsup:

Skins Trumpet-Man · March 12, 2003

Can't find much to argue with in that article.

Art · March 12, 2003

STM,

If you can't, then you're a moron, and you can't find much to argue with regarding that brand, if you can't find much to argue with in that article.

godeatgod · March 12, 2003

Derrius Thompson is a product of Spurrier's system.

TerpSkin · March 12, 2003

Derrius Thompson would've caught 80 balls in the Jets offense? Please. If Derrius gets as good as he can be I suspect he's a 50 catch 650 yard receiver.

This article was ridiculous and Coles is definitely a better receiver right now than Thompson, BUT... I also find it difficult to understand why anyone, especially a Redkins fan, would say the above quote about Derrius. Having only started part of the season in his first season of any significant playing time he had 53 catches for 773 yards and you SUSPECT that Derrius is a 50 catch 650 yard receiver IF he gets as good as he CAN be? He's already surpassed that with less than a full season as a starting wideout... I just don't understand why some people turn on ex-Redskins so fast.

TankRizzo · March 12, 2003

That article is basically a rehash of every Snyder stereotype going. Nothing new there that we havn't heard the last 3 years.

BuckeyeSkins · March 12, 2003

The thing I've always wondered about is what exactly is it that qualifies someone as an expert? From what I've read from some of the so-called experts, a more accurate term would be "idiot".

dayumnuttinleft · March 12, 2003

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/don_banks/news/2003/03/11/banks_insider/

'Skin deep

Personnel men unimpressed by Washington's spending spree

Posted: Tuesday March 11, 2003 4:51 PM

Updated: Tuesday March 11, 2003 6:03 PM