SportingNews.com: Mutual interest between Washington Redskins, Cullen Jenkins

[Califan007 The Constipated]

In the Redskins-Snyder history, what is our batting average on free agent signings? It’s pretty poor, right?

In the Redskins-Snyder history, what's our history of drafting WRs?

Looks like we need to go out and sign some name WRs :yes:...because if history serves correct, none of the drafted WRs we have now will pan out.

[Water Boy]

The title of this thread is Mutual interest between Washington Redskins and Cullen Jenkins. Has anybody thought about how wierd this sounds. I mean i could see the Skins having a interest in C. Jenkins but why would the feelings be mutual? Why would he leave a team like the Packers to play for a team coming off a 6-10 season when he could leave and atleast find a team with a winning record and a better shot at a title? And then i came up with this. The only reason this is mutual is because i believe the Skins will sign both of the Jenkins brothers!! The two brothers would like to play together and name another team that needs as much as the Skins do on a D-Line and can give them a chance to be starters side by side. K.Jenkins stopped by for a visit to the Skins before the lockout and i believe that as long as Packers allow C.Jenkins to test the market i believe it is going to be a package deal.

[flexxskins]

The title of this thread is Mutual interest between Washington Redskins and Cullen Jenkins. Has anybody thought about how wierd this sounds. I mean i could see the Skins having a interest in C. Jenkins but why would the feelings be mutual? Why would he leave a team like the Packers to play for a team coming off a 6-10 season when he could leave and atleast find a team with a winning record and a better shot at a title? And then i came up with this. The only reason this is mutual is because i believe the Skins will sign both of the Jenkins brothers!! The two brothers would like to play together and name another team that needs as much as the Skins do on a D-Line and can give them a chance to be starters side by side. K.Jenkins stopped by for a visit to the Skins before the lockout and i believe that as long as Packers allow C.Jenkins to test the market i believe it is going to be a package deal.

That's definitely an interesting theory that you have there.

However, I just don't know about signing a 32 year old D-lineman that's coming off of a ACL. He has been a beast in the league though.

[moondog]

As good as Kris Jenkins has been at NT in the 3-4, I'd have some major worries about a guy his size coming off an ACL at his age. I'm not sure I'd make him an offer at all but if I did it would be for the same money we're paying Kemo. At their best, Jenkins was by far a superior player and they are both aging and coming off injuries so if I had to have one or the other I'd take Jenkins at this point. Not saying I want us to offer him a contract but if we did it'd be the same deal Kemo's on and I'd only keep one of them at the conclusion of camp.

[Oldfan]

In the Redskins-Snyder history, what's our history of drafting WRs?

I made an argument that the high bidder in free agency will probably overpay regardless of the football position involved. And, you think that by cherry-picking the Skins futility in drafting at the WR position, you have made an intelligent counter?

[Conn]

I don't trust any player who just came off a superbowl win, and wants to come play for the redskins. Especially if they're older.

The ONLY way I would is if it was well-documented that he grew up a Skins fan. Then, I could see why he'd want to come here to end his career, coming off such success.

[Diesel__44]

I don't trust any player who just came off a superbowl win, and wants to come play for the redskins. Especially if they're older.

The ONLY way I would is if it was well-documented that he grew up a Skins fan. Then, I could see why he'd want to come here to end his career, coming off such success.

He's a fan of the almight dollar. Cullen grew up in Detroit and went to Central Michigan. Kris did go to MD but he'll be 32 and has only played in 7 games the last 2 years.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I made an argument that the high bidder in free agency will probably overpay regardless of the football position involved. And, you think that by cherry-picking the Skins futility in drafting at the WR position, you have made an intelligent counter?

You made a ****load of different arguments in your post lol ...Let's count 'em, shall we? :thumbsup:

1) Skins haven't done well in FA during Snyder's tenure ("In the Redskins-Snyder history, what is our batting average on free agent signings? It’s pretty poor, right?")

2) The FO change is irrelevant because FAs rarely, if ever. live up to the dollar amount paid to them ("Ah, but you will argue that now we have a front office that knows what it’s doing. Do they? The article I quoted makes the logical argument that most free agents will not perform well enough to earn their money. It doesn’t matter whose front office picks them. If you’re the high bidder you probably overpaid.")

3) We don't need Cullen Jenkins because he means more to the Packers than he would mean to us, yet they let him go ("You argue that the Packers could afford to do without Culllen Jenkins, but we need him. That’s not so. A single win mean more to the Packers than it does to us. Yet, they found Jenkins expendable.")

4) We don't need Atogwe because even one extra win means a lot more to the Rams than it does to the Redskins, yet they let him go ("A single win means more to the Rams than it does to us because they have a better team than we do and they’re in the weakest division in the NFL. And yet, they found Atogwe expendable at his price.")

5) Both players are nothing more than short term fixes that won't help us be good this year anyway ("We’re talking about two expensive players who represent short-term fixes for a team that has little chance of escaping a mediocre season.")

Now...by my count, arguments number 1, 3, 4 and 5 have little to nothing to do with overpaying...which is what you said your argument was in your post. Funny, but I took the argument of your post to be how foolish it would be to go out and sign FAs, regardless of costs, because we have done poorly as acquiring FAs (OF argument #1), and that the FAs we're supposedly thinking about signing (or already signed) won't help the Skins anyway (OF argument #3, #4 and #5). I concentrated on argument #1, and showed how faulty that logic was.

You're welcome ...

[Oldfan]

You made a ****load of different arguments in your post lol ...Let's count 'em, shall we? :thumbsup:

1) Skins haven't done well in FA during Snyder's tenure ("In the Redskins-Snyder history, what is our batting average on free agent signings? It’s pretty poor, right?")

2) The FO change is irrelevant because FAs rarely, if ever. live up to the dollar amount paid to them ("Ah, but you will argue that now we have a front office that knows what it’s doing. Do they? The article I quoted makes the logical argument that most free agents will not perform well enough to earn their money. It doesn’t matter whose front office picks them. If you’re the high bidder you probably overpaid.")

3) We don't need Cullen Jenkins because he means more to the Packers than he would mean to us, yet they let him go ("You argue that the Packers could afford to do without Culllen Jenkins, but we need him. That’s not so. A single win mean more to the Packers than it does to us. Yet, they found Jenkins expendable.")

4) We don't need Atogwe because even one extra win means a lot more to the Rams than it does to the Redskins, yet they let him go ("A single win means more to the Rams than it does to us because they have a better team than we do and they’re in the weakest division in the NFL. And yet, they found Atogwe expendable at his price.")

5) Both players are nothing more than short term fixes that won't help us be good this year anyway ("We’re talking about two expensive players who represent short-term fixes for a team that has little chance of escaping a mediocre season.")

Now...by my count, arguments number 1, 3, 4 and 5 have little to nothing to do with overpaying...which is what you said your argument was in your post. Funny, but I took the argument of your post to be how foolish it would be to go out and sign FAs, regardless of costs, because we have done poorly as acquiring FAs (OF argument #1), and that the FAs we're supposedly thinking about signing (or already signed) won't help the Skins anyway (OF argument #3, #4 and #5). I concentrated on argument #1, and showed how faulty that logic was.

You're welcome ...

Cali, your post does nothing but confuse a simple issue.

When you took this statement of context, in order to find fault with it, you separated it from the argument it applies to:

In the Redskins-Snyder history, what is our batting average on free agent signings? It’s pretty poor, right?

Let’s put it back.

ME ~ In the Redskins-Snyder history, what is our batting average on free agent signings? It’s pretty poor, right? Ah, but you will argue that now we have a front office that knows what it’s doing.

Do they? The article I quoted makes the logical argument that most free agents will not perform well enough to earn their money. It doesn’t matter whose front office picks them. If you’re the high bidder you probably overpaid.

Now, it’s clear that the statement supports the logical argument that most free agents will not perform well enough to earn their money and the article I cited explains why.

Cherry-picking the Redskins futility in drafting at the WR does not counter the fact that the Redskins poor history in FA supports my argument. It's not logical to say we should stop drafting WRs because there is no good reason to support that policy. There IS good reason to question the signing of expensive free agents.

[Est.1974]

Completely agree with your thoughts here. Jenkins will make our entire defense better and he will prove to be especially beneficial to Rak and Kerrigan's game.

Agreed - And the injury thing of missing 17 games in 3 years is a bit misleading. Including post season, its more like only missing 5 of the last 37.

But, if we do sign him, the Jarvis Jenkins pick at #41 is called into question, imo, if he is slated as RDE also. We've heard differing stories on how he'll be used, so time will tell. However, I hate the thought of him warming the bench as a high 2nd round pick. That pick should equate to a starter in 2011. Otherwise, you trade back like we did from #49 to aquire about 4 extra picks to secure some additional roster depth.

[Oldfan]

Agreed - And the injury thing of missing 17 games in 3 years is a bit misleading. Including post season' date=' its more like only missing 5 of the last 37. .[/quote']"5 of the last 37" isn't deceptive?

30 years old + injury history + high dollar contract = no way

[Califan007 The Constipated]

"5 of the last 37" isn't deceptive?

30 years old + injury history + high dollar contract = no way

Not as deceptive as "he missed 17 games over the last 3 years".

Saying it that way makes it seem as if he's injury prone (which alludes to constantly missing games due to injury). If everyone said "Jenkins went on IR 3 years ago and missed 12 games", then all the talk about injury concerns would have barely materialized. Because missing 5 games over the last two seasons is hardly worth worrying over...and playing 32 out of 37 games since coming back from IR shows that still worrying about that injury would be foolish.

[Oldfan]

Not as deceptive as "he missed 17 games over the last 3 years".

Saying it that way makes it seem as if he's injury prone (which alludes to constantly missing games due to injury). If everyone said "Jenkins went on IR 3 years ago and missed 12 games", then all the talk about injury concerns would have barely materialized. Because missing 5 games over the last two seasons is hardly worth worrying over...and playing 32 out of 37 games since coming back from IR shows that still worrying about that injury would be foolish.

5 of the last 37, 17 in three years...both are deceptive stats. Who cares which is MORE deceptive?

The player has an injury history, and, at 30-31, injuries begin having a cumulative effect. Vets play with pain, but they don't play at 100% with pain.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 of the last 37, 17 in three years...both are deceptive stats. Who cares which is MORE deceptive?

The player has an injury history, and, at 30, injuries begin having a cumulative effect. Vets play with pain, but they don't play at 100% with pain.

You don't quite get what I was saying.

If the ONLY thing said about Jenkins was that he missed "5 games out of the last 37", then yes, that would be deceptive stats...but not AS deceptive as saying he missed "17 games over the last 3 years" shows he's injury-prone.

However, the "5 games missed out of the last 37" stat is said to give more clarity to the overly-generic 17-games-missed-last-3-seasons talk that keeps getting tossed out as proof positive that Jenkins' "history of injury" is a concern. It's being said to put Jenkins' injuries into better and more accurate context.

Does anyone even know what his injuries were? lol...

[moondog]

Agreed - And the injury thing of missing 17 games in 3 years is a bit misleading. Including post season' date=' its more like only missing 5 of the last 37.

But, if we do sign him, the Jarvis Jenkins pick at #41 is called into question, imo, if he is slated as RDE also. We've heard differing stories on how he'll be used, so time will tell. However, I hate the thought of him warming the bench as a high 2nd round pick. That pick should equate to a starter in 2011. Otherwise, you trade back like we did from #49 to aquire about 4 extra picks to secure some additional roster depth.[/quote']

I'm completely confused at why you think Jarvis would be warming the bench or a wasted pick if we bring in Cullen Jenkins. A 3-4 DE rotation typically has 4 DE's all seeing plenty of playing time. Golston started most games last year yet Phillip Daniels and Vonnie Holliday both saw a lot of action. Bringing in Cullen would make the top three in our rotation Carriker, Cullen and Jarvis. Hopefully the fourth guy would be Jeremy Jarmon earning the right - I think he's a solid player. But regardless Jarvis Jenkins would see a lot of playing time and I think a guy like Cullen helps keep him fresh and can teach him plenty. It improves our depth and the value of Jarvis. The idea of the position and rotation is to have 4 guys who are all worthy of playing time and although one guys doesn't typically see a majority of the snaps (more than 50%), they improve the production of each other per snap. Hopefully they also each present a different and unique challenge to the opposing offensive line making it a more difficult preparation and overall game for them.

[bulldog]

If this team goes out and gives the 30 year old Jenkins a 5 year contract for $60 million with $15-20M guaranteed it will be evidence that it's the same old Redskins

[moondog]

If this team goes out and gives the 30 year old Jenkins a 5 year contract for $60 million with $15-20M guaranteed it will be evidence that it's the same old Redskins

Ummm, trust me Jenkins is getting nowhere near that kind of money. I'm thinking closer to the numbers of Atogwe's contract. I haven't heard any specifics on what he's looking for but I don't think there's a single player on the free agent market that anyone should pay that much for. It will probably happen but that's my feelings. I don't think we'd give that to Yanda, and we shouldn't.

[PokerPacker]

It's probably been mentioned, but Jenkins did have the benefit of B.J. Raji anchoring the middle of his DL. I'm not saying that he is not good/talented, but goodness knows who he would be working with at our NT position.

you bring up a fair point. He had 7 sacks last year playing alongside B.J. Raji. 5 of those games were with a clubbed hand, I believe, he missed another 5 all together plus only being in the Jets game for a couple plays. ANYWAYS, what I'm getting at, is he had 7 sacks in a very short amount of time on the field and playing through injuries. Compare that to the year before where he had Ryan Pickett playing NT and he had only 4.5 sacks in 16 games. Though I suppose it could also be a result of him coming back from a season ending pectoral injury from the year before.

[Est.1974]

I'm completely confused at why you think Jarvis would be warming the bench or a wasted pick if we bring in Cullen Jenkins.

I don't think he'd be a wasted pick, I just don't think it would prove to be the best use of that pick at that slot, if our intention was to sign a premier FA who will clearly start at his position.

I appreciate we need a rotation a DE, and depth at that position, but we could have achieved that by trading back and securing more selections, or we could have used that pick on a OL player who could outright start, as opposed to being someone playing less that 50% of the time in that DE rotation.

But, there are no guarentees that Cullen Jenkins will be a Redskin yet, so time will tell.

[Chump Bailey]

I appreciate we need a rotation a DE' date=' and depth at that position, but we could have achieved that by trading back and securing more selections[/quote']

I think we really whiffed on some decent late round DE prospects personally: Greg Romeus and Lawrence Guy.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

I'm completely confused at why you think Jarvis would be warming the bench or a wasted pick if we bring in Cullen Jenkins. A 3-4 DE rotation typically has 4 DE's all seeing plenty of playing time. Golston started most games last year yet Phillip Daniels and Vonnie Holliday both saw a lot of action. Bringing in Cullen would make the top three in our rotation Carriker, Cullen and Jarvis. Hopefully the fourth guy would be Jeremy Jarmon earning the right - I think he's a solid player. But regardless Jarvis Jenkins would see a lot of playing time and I think a guy like Cullen helps keep him fresh and can teach him plenty. It improves our depth and the value of Jarvis. The idea of the position and rotation is to have 4 guys who are all worthy of playing time and although one guys doesn't typically see a majority of the snaps (more than 50%), they improve the production of each other per snap. Hopefully they also each present a different and unique challenge to the opposing offensive line making it a more difficult preparation and overall game for them.

I completely agree. Cullen is also a good pass rusher at the 3-4 end position, while Jarvis Jenkins is predicted to be more of a run stopper, and Cullen can also play the NT if he had to. Kris Jenkins can still play the NT at a high level if healthy. Our d-line would be instantly upgraded and we would have a nice rotation of players. I think Jarmon will be pretty good this season in his role. Would be an upgrade over Gholston and Daniels thats for sure.

[Chump Bailey]

Does anyone even know what his injuries were? lol...

IIRC, he suffered a torn pec muscle and required surgery. He did not miss a game the season after the injury/surgery I believe. Other than that, I believe he's had some probems with his calves. I don't think it's too serious. I understand the concerns with age/injury with Jenkins. But, I personally am not worried about it with this particular player. I think he's capable of playing at a high level for several more seasons. I also think Jarvis could learn quite a bit from him and Carriker. If the contract is reasonable, I'm all for it. I don't however quite understand the interest in his brother Kris. I'm with the ES segment there in that I think I'd rather have Bryant and Nield play if Aubrayo Franklin is not an option.

[ChillSkinzFan84]

IIRC, he suffered a torn pec muscle and required surgery. He did not miss a game the season after the injury/surgery I believe. Other than that, I believe he's had some probems with his calves. I don't think it's too serious. I understand the concerns with age/injury with Jenkins. But, I personally am not worried about it with this particular player. I think he's capable of playing at a high level for several more seasons. I also think Jarvis could learn quite a bit from him and Carriker. If the contract is reasonable, I'm all for it. I don't however quite understand the interest in his brother Kris. I'm with the ES segment there in that I think I'd rather have Bryant and Nield play if Aubrayo Franklin is not an option.

I agree with almost everything you said except i wouldnt mind having Kris Jenkins on the team if its a cheap deal. I think he would be motivated as hell to play after being injured the last 2 seasons. The injuries are worrisome but if he signa cheap i think the risk/reward would be worth it. He would be a good rotational guy and starter if he's healthy all year. Franklin is obviously most people's 1st choice but i think we may have to overpay for him and he's getting a little older. But I def wouldnt be upset if we did get him because we would be filling a need. Im really anxious to see this Nield kid play...im hoping he's our eventual starter. Come on end this lockout so we can check the roster out in preseason. The juices are starting to flow lol

[Chump Bailey]

I agree with almost everything you said except i wouldnt mind having Kris Jenkins on the team if its a cheap deal.

My perspective is simply that it's a fairly safe assumption that signing Cullen would net us 3-5 years of solid play from the DE position and someone you can build upon in a sense. It would make for a reasonable long term move. I don't see that with Kris no matter the contract. He's a great player, but does not make sense long term because of serious injury questions. We may eke out an extra win or two, but nothing that would serve the team's best interest for future seasons. I think in this particular case it makes sense to go with Bryant and Neild.

[PokerPacker]

My perspective is simply that it's a fairly safe assumption that signing Cullen would net us 3-5 years of solid play from the DE position and someone you can build upon in a sense. It would make for a reasonable long term move. I don't see that with Kris no matter the contract. He's a great player, but does not make sense long term because of serious injury questions. We may eke out an extra win or two, but nothing that would serve the team's best interest for future seasons. I think in this particular case it makes sense to go with Bryant and Neild.

Even if Kris can't play much due to injury, perhaps his veteran presence will go a long way in developing Neild and co. teaching them the finer points of playing NT.