bulldog Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Hall made the pro bowl in 2005 and 2006, this article says he has 'never' been a dependable starting corner in the NFL? Really? Not merely not one of the best, but not even dependable on the field? As far as the reference to Jason Taylor goes, the Redskins didn't need Taylor's salary to resign Hall, Taylor's departure was a natural consequence to the poor trade made by the Redskins to bring him to Washington. When Phillip Daniels went down, the Redskins needed a LDE. Fine, the team wanted to replace a down player at a spot of need on the roster. Understandable. But Jason Taylor at 240 pounds and at age 34 was not the anwer to a 4-3 alignment such as the Redskins run. If the Patriots want to sign Taylor to a $1M deal with incentives to play outside linebacker in their 3-4, that's fine he's a good fit for that system. But he was never going to be a player here, never worth an $8M cap number. The Taylor trade was a mistake that had to come out in the wash, to blame it on DeAngelo Hall is a clear misunderstanding of what transpired here. The same authors from MVN have been railing on the Redskins for carrying an aging roster of overpaid player past their primes, and yet all of a sudden they salivate over what Springs and Tayor can do at age 34/35? New England has loaded up on 35 year old players in the offseason to provide depth for next season - a clear sign they are making a run but also a clear sign the drafting that Pioli had done in mid-decade to provide emerging stars is NO LONGER WORKING. The Patriots aren't producing these types of players any longer. In fact Fred Taylor was brought in because former top pick Laurence Mulroney is a potential bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shilsu Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I do not mind picking up DeAngelo Hall since it did fix a foreseeable weakspot in terms of depth (considering Rogers is now in his contract year and Shawn Springs was pretty much gone), but I have to wonder just how this front office operates. Weren't we originally at a standstill with Hall over a 6-Year $48M contract? But then we end up giving him a $54M contract? Huh???? It reminds me of a Will Ferrell movie or something. Vinny: We'll give you $42M. Hall: I want $48M. Vinny: We'll give you $45M. Hall: I want $48M. Vinny: We'll give you $48M. Hall: I want $60M. Vinny: We'll give you $54M. Hall: Okay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'm getting so tired of my Skins getting bashed for the DHall signing...We guaranteed him $23mil and he has said and Vinny said that the Patriots wanted to sign him and that they were going to offer him upwards of $20mil guaranteed to sign...If the Pats would have signed him they'd be getting rave reviews for getting a 25yr old, athletic, ball-hawking shut down CB, that has matured, and that you can't put premium on that... They wouldn't have said Hall matured, but they WOULD have said that the Patriots could "straighten him out", and would have been using Randy Moss as an example of them doing just that. You see, nothing the Patriots do is ever wrong or ever bad...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I do not mind picking up DeAngelo Hall since it did fix a foreseeable weakspot in terms of depth (considering Rogers is now in his contract year and Shawn Springs was pretty much gone), but I have to wonder just how this front office operates.Weren't we originally at a standstill with Hall over a 6-Year $48M contract? But then we end up giving him a $54M contract? Huh???? It reminds me of a Will Ferrell movie or something. Vinny: We'll give you $42M. Hall: I want $48M. Vinny: We'll give you $45M. Hall: I want $48M. Vinny: We'll give you $48M. Hall: I want $60M. Vinny: We'll give you $54M. Hall: Okay! If it actually happened like that, I would assume a missing piece would be the FO getting an idea of what Hall might garner if he hit the free agency market and thus raised their offer to keep that from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 CBs always get big money and Hall would have been th ebest on the market, especially considering age. Teams were going to thrwo big money at him as soon as FA opened without a doubt. I still think we overpaid, but not by as much as some people seem to think. I definitely don't think we overpaid. He's really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Everyone knows that they are a dime a dozen, and usually never command hefty contracts on the open market...when they signed to play on a defense with a great pass rush There, fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Hall will be like Fletch only in the secondary. He is consistent, has a good mix of coverage and big play ability, and he is lightning fast *cough put him at PR*. Not to mention he is less likely to miss half a season with injury. Hope we see him returning punts vertically. Forgot what that was like. The author of the article was way off about Springs vs Hall, especially considering longer term. The other comments seem valid. We were on the good end of those though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Same writer, more in depth on DHall. Interesting follow up read on this guy's perspective as Skins fan: http://redskinshogheaven.com/2009/03/move-over-rogers-d-hall-is-the-x-factor-of-the-2009-redskins.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 One of the things I HATE about offseason is mediots opining about whether or not someone is overpayed. A player's salary doesn't matter on sundays. We didn't release anyone we truly wanted to bring back in order to sign either Hall or Haynesworth so honestly, the dollar figure is entirely inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Well, if Hall stays in line, which is fair to question given his past, the Redskins' defense should be even better than fourth in the league this year. Hell, depending on what we actually have as a rotation next to AH on the line, we could feasibly be looking at the #1defense this year. The Scary part is our offense. And, despite our record in the first half of the season, if the defense is winning games DESPITE our offense, we better get some changes. Last year, the Steelers' defense was BY FAR the best defense in the league. If you think we're going to be anywhere near their caliber for defense, you're out of your mind. Carter doesn't have a rushing end opposite to him (though, this season, the QB won't be able to step up in the pocket every play). What happens if Haynesworth goes down? Carter goes down? We're missing an OLB. The only bit of solice is that Daniels should stuff that side for running plays (making the strong side linebacker not as important against the run). What if Rocky goes down? What if either of our corners goes down? Smoot could spell some guys, but having him start gives me the shivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I thought Hall played great for the Skins in the short time he was here last season and deserved a market level deal at the CB position. Only time will tell, but I think it's way too early to call this a bad move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G1 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Every time I read expert analysis criticising the Hall deal they mention his time in Oakland but I notice nobody mentions his play with us? Springs was on a big deal and simply didn't play enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area51 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Dominique friggin' Foxworth, who was traded midseason by the Broncos (who need/needed CB help badly) to the Falcons, got 17 million guaranteed. I'd much rather have an "overrated" and "overpaid" DHall at 23 Mill guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 There is NO way the Skins D is number one in 2009, even with BigAl. The Skins need two more pass rushers and another elite LB and they might be closing in on #1. The Steelers and Giants have multiple guys who can get to the passer, so does Baltimore so until the Skins get more pass rushrs they will still be top ten, but not top five IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaSkins21 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Everything is just conjecture right now. Time will tell with these signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagletooth Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I love the part about Jason Taylor ready to go BACK to a winning organization. Yeah, because Miami was the cream of the crop, before JT's one year layover in Loserville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardSkins88 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 There is NO way the Skins D is number one in 2009, even with BigAl.The Skins need two more pass rushers and another elite LB and they might be closing in on #1. The Steelers and Giants have multiple guys who can get to the passer, so does Baltimore so until the Skins get more pass rushrs they will still be top ten, but not top five IMO. We were #4 in defense last season.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 We were #4 in defense last season.. I figured somebody would post this;). They were ranked high in YARDAGE, but all other important stats like turnovers and sacks, they were ranked much lower, and that is what I am talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskindan07 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 We win and all this BS critizism of over paying goes away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Great fantasy scenario about Taylor and Springs. Too bad it never happened... If the author wanted some credibility, perhaps his suggesting the NE defense would far better than the Skins defense should have been left out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I figured somebody would post this;).They were ranked high in YARDAGE, but all other important stats like turnovers and sacks, they were ranked much lower, and that is what I am talking about. I agree that turnovers and sacks are important(mostly from a helping out the offense standpoint), but remember, the Skins were also #6 in points allowed. That right there is half of winning a football game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I rolled my eyes at the first one. Taylor was a DE. How is it that a DE is considered to be blitzing in our scheme? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Your explanation was clear, precise and in depth, until the last sentence: In fact Fred Taylor was brought in because former top pick Laurence Mulroney is a potential bust. Laurence Who? But, it really annoys me when fans don't even know the names of the players on the team they follow! which unfortunately bounces off the gloves of Carlos "Stone Hands" Rodgers who is filling in for Spring's, who has a hurt pinky and had to sit out for 7 games. What next? Alfred Hayesworth? Derek Dockerry? Dan Synder? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Here's a nugget that makes me take this guy with a grain of salt: In a vacuum, this is a terrible contract restructure from the team's perspective to a declining future-HOF running back who might keep the team from otherwise realizing it's ultimate potential next year...Darren Sproles best years in SD will now be spent playing second fiddle to an aging Tomlinson, who happens to have a huge chip on his shoulder as well. Aging? The man is only 29, not old even by football standards. As for Tomlinson's numbers falling off, his line is not as strong as it was a few years ago and SD parted ways with the bulldozer who used to clear his path, Lorenzo Neal. Breakout year for Sproles? He only had 330 yds as a change-of-pace back, which is what he is. Anyone who takes him for a featured back is wrong. Basically, he looked really nice in that last reg season game vs. Denver and against Indy in the playoffs. Two games a career does not make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dana87 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 That's a good point. My concern is simply what the market value for Hall was exactly. I think we might have overpaid and unecessarily so. Teams were wary of Hall and that should have worked a bit more in our favor IMO. The Skins had little choice in the matter. They knew they wanted to let an aging often hurt CB in Springs go because they were paying him to much for his playing time, not his ability. He was probably our best cover corner when on the field, but that was just not enough of the time. Hall on the other hand came in and made plays for us right away. He is a lot younger and we simply could not afford for someone to pay him more and lose him. imagine our starting corners next year being... Rogers & Smoot Smoot is often injured as well, and is no longer or possibly ever was as good as Hall. IMO Hall is our best playmaker in the secondary. Overpaying is a relative concept. If you told me that you know for a fact that we could have signed Hall for less money, and that the difference would have been enough to offer to Willis, the RT from Seattle, to get him signed then I would agree that we made a bad deal. But short of that you do what you have to do to get the players that you feel will help you win and I beleive that is what the Skins have done. 1). The Redskins are better today with Hall starting at corner than we would have been if he signed elsewhere. 2). We are better with Haynesworth in the middle of the line than we would have been without him, even if we had kept J. Taylor. 3). We are better with Dockery at LG than Kendall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.