When will we EVER learn? Redskins fans, some of the biggest hypocrites around .....

[Oldfan]

This seems to suggest something different...

I don't know how you read that to interpret that the Vikes gave Atogwe a significantly better offer.

I know "making the team better" is an offensive term to some people, but that should be the goal in the offseason.

Let's not play word games. There's a difference between thinking long-term and thinking short-term.

Atogwe is a short-term improvement that will hurt us in the long-term because he will sop up both playing time and salary cap dollars that will hinder our chances of finding and keeping a younger player at the FS.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment, but I also think that there's a balance here somewhere. It's ok to pick up guys that you think that contribute who are in their 30s. With a whole lot of IFs attached:

IF the price is right

IF you are not stunting the growth of a younger player with a higher ceiling and longer possible tenure on the team.

IF they fit in to the scheme, and can contribute right away. There's no sense in taking a "development project" who's 30 years old

IF there is no other way to fill the roster spot and get competent play from a younger player without overspending.

There is no black and white rule here. In order to build a team, you have to build through the draft, through free agency, and keep your core group of guys around. You also have to have stability at the GM and coaching positions so that they can acquire players to fit their scheme over a period of years. Where you want to be is not looking for 5-10 starters every off season, but using your draft picks to add depth, and possible replacements in 2-3 years. But you can't do that if you're constantly looking for starters.

And make no mistake, the 'Skins right now are looking for starters. And a LOT of them. They've already added a number of potential starters this off season through the draft, but they still have open questions at key positions.

[KCClybun]

No. Don't read more into my statement than what I said. I don't see why we have to fill those spots with FAs.

...We have to fill those spots with free agents because there was no one in the draft or no one on the team to fill those spots.

It's kind of self explanatory.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

What injury history? He's played in every single game in four of his six seasons. He missed one start in 2010. Not a game. A start. That's it. He went two three straight seasons without suffering a major injury before 2009, and then came back and played in every game in 2010.

Let's be honest here, sir. I think that's fairly normal for a guy who plays safety, certainly not a "OH NO, HE'S GOT AN INJURY HISTORY" thing.

I'm gona' take a wild (if educated) guess and presume Of was talking about Cullen Jenkins, who many want for some bizarre reason. Not Atogwe.

Hail.

[Oldfan]

I agree, but you don't know that the Redskins are considering it. All we know is a few guys on an internet message board have thrown the idea out there.

If I had said that signing those players was a great idea, would that have been silly also? Or is it just complaining that makes it silly?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

...We have to fill those spots with free agents because there was no one in the draft or no one on the team to fill those spots.

It's kind of self explanatory.

To spell out OF's point...if you aren't planning to compete in 2011, why would you have to fill those roster spots with veteran FAs over undrafted rookie FAs? Using UDFAs gives you more flexibility and opportunity to spend the money when someone's play as a Redskin warrants it. A truly rebuilding team would have no issues filling out a roster with young, cheap talent.

[Oldfan]

I'm gona' take a wild (if educated) guess and presume Of was talking about Cullen Jenkins, who many want for some bizarre reason. Not Atogwe.

Hail.

No. The poster confused a general statement I made about injury history and, without cause, applied it to Atogwe. I think my reply clarified my position.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

...We have to fill those spots with free agents because there was no one in the draft or no one on the team to fill those spots.

It's kind of self explanatory.

But there's zero reason what so ever a team in our position, facing another losing season as we slowly re-build and get younger for the long haul, should fill any gaps with ageing, veteran FA's.

That seems to be getting completely lost here. Bar SHF, and I understand and appreciate the reason he gave behind it, nobody is saying we shouldn't use FA. The poster you quoted is just stating his view point that it's not law so to speak that we have to use FA, but he's far from stupid enough to dismiss FA totally. The issue is HOW you use FA. And the age and price range of FA's you go after. Particularly when your a team in a position like ours.

Hail.

[The Tris]

He doesn't like that he's thirty. Because, you know, no one over the age of 30 has ever produced a worth while season in the NFL after signing a fair deal. Or something.

Straw. Man.

In this past decade what Redskins players have been held down the roster due to FA's that have gone on to have success elsewhere? Off the top of my head Ryan Clark comes to mind.

Well that speaks to the second problem of the past decade - the trading of draft picks so there was no young talent on the roster to hold down.

For the first time in a decade we have a lot of young talent in many of the positions where people are advocating signing FA starters.

A truly rebuilding team would have no issues filling out a roster with young, cheap talent.

And thats the rub.

We are a team that needs to be rebuilt, but neither the coaching staff nor the fanbase will admit it.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If I had said that signing those players was a great idea, would that have been silly also? Or is it just complaining that makes it silly?

I hadn't gotten to your reply when I quoted the initial response man. Apologies for my zeal.

Hail.

[MartinC]

To spell out OF's point...if you aren't planning to compete in 2011, why would you have to fill those roster spots with veteran FAs over undrafted rookie FAs? Using UDFAs gives you more flexibility and opportunity to spend the money when someone's play as a Redskin warrants it. A truly rebuilding team would have no issues filling out a roster with young, cheap talent.

But even after sigining Atogwe we are apparently $45M under the anticpated minmum salary floor. Signing him is not stopping spending money on extending our home grown talent.

I agree with the general point that singing older vets is not as a rule of thumb the way to build a roster but I dont accept the position that signing a 30 year old quality starter to a modest contract with a good injury record and good character at a position of need is a bad signing.

[Oldfan]

Here's the issue though, who else should we have fill the FS hole? Kareem Moore?

It doesn't matter who plays the position if winning this season isn't our top priority.

I don't want to sign any more 30 year old guys, but I'm not opposed to bringing in ONE guy that meets all those parameters.

I wouldn't care about one signing either. We were using the Atogwe signing as a test case to allow us to get more specific about our opinions on FA signings in general.

---------- Post added July-11th-2011 at 01:21 PM ----------

...I agree with the general point that singing older vets is not as a rule of thumb the way to build a roster but I dont accept the position that signing a 30 year old quality starter to a modest contract with a good injury record and good character at a position of need is a bad signing.

As I said, I regard the Atogwe signing as a test case. If he's the only one fine, but as you pointed out, we have lots of needs. If we make more signings like Atogwe, we will hinder the long term outlook for this team. Such a policy would virtually guarantee mediocrity.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

And thats the rub.

We are a team that needs to be rebuilt, but neither the coaching staff nor the fanbase will admit it.

The coaching staff I can appreciate to an extent Tris man. Shanahan's got the unenviable task of trying to balance the here and now in today's "what have you done for me lately?" NFL against the long term future. What worries me after I thought he was seriously swaying toward youth and committing to a re-build is when I read the insiders confirming players like Cullen Jenkins.

We make many pick-ups like him and it's just another year of the same ol' same ol' from the Redskins and the horror cycle we just can't shake.

The attitude of certain members of the fan base that are all about "win now" as much as they deny it on the other hand blows my mind.

Hail.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But even after sigining Atogwe we are apparently $45M under the anticpated minmum salary floor. Signing him is not stopping spending money on extending our home grown talent.

I agree with the general point that singing older vets is not as a rule of thumb the way to build a roster but I dont accept the position that signing a 30 year old quality starter to a modest contract with a good injury record and good character at a position of need is a bad signing.

No, I understand. I was just addressing his question that no team that is more than a year away HAS TO fill their roster out with veterans. There are other options. That's all. I'm not really against the Atogwe signing myself.

[KCClybun]

I don't know how you read that to interpret that the Vikes gave Atogwe a significantly better offer.

Let's not play word games. There's a difference between thinking long-term and thinking short-term.

Atogwe is a short-term improvement that will hurt us in the long-term because he will sop up both playing time and salary cap dollars that will hinder our chances of finding and keeping a younger player at the FS.

Funny how you kinda ignored the rest of that post, but okay then.

You're right; Atogwe is a short term improvement. But he's still an improvement, and he fills a hole that couldn't be filled via any other means. You keep talking about younger guys getting playing time. What younger player has the kind of upside that would make the coaches look and say "we don't have to fill this hole, we have a guy here that can play"?

I know Kareem Moore was hurt, but everyone on the defense was playing hurt. He can't tackle. He takes poor angles. He's a liability in coverage. It's obvious that without SIGNIFICANT improvement, he's not going to be any sort of long term answer at the free safety position. So are we just supposed to keep playing him? And hope some sort of magical light switch flicks on and he'll suddenly be better at all things we can clearly see on the field he's bad at? And we're not coaches. I bet the coaches bang their head against the wall watching Moore play.

The same goes for all our free safeties. The only starting caliber safety we have is Landry, with Reed being a very capable back-up, and Chris Horton showing flashes, if he could stay healthy. Our free safety position has no depth, and currently, no one who can play the position without being targeted and being a liability. There was no one we could've drafted that could fill that hole; Gomes is intriguing, but he was drafted in the fifth round for a reason. There's no one on our team that our coaching staff felt like could fill that hole.

So you bring in O.J Atogwe to get some frakking stability at the position, so at least for the next 3 or 4 seasons that's NOT something you have to worry about. You draft guys like Gomes, and you make Gomes and Moore compete to be the back-up to O.J Atogwe, so you have two people driving each other to be better. Then, you give whoever wins the second spot on the depth chart his opportunities to rotate in and out of the line-up, to spell O.J when he needs a Gatorade break, to come in on certain blitz packages and nickel and dime formations.

You put the guy in live game situations without putting the whole game on a young guy who would be forced to learn on the fly in a truncated off season. And then, maybe when O.J's 33 and his skills are declining, maybe you have a mature, ready player already on your roster, already in his prime, already to go in the event O.J goes down, and instead of having to go back and draft another free safety and develop him all over again and start him and hope he works out.

That's how you develop depth on your football team and set yourself up so that when someone leaves/retires/gets injured, the team doesn't miss a beat. I don't think people understand that.

[MartinC]

As I said, I regard the Atogwe signing as a test case. If he's the only one fine, but as you pointed out, we have lots of needs. If we make more signings like Atogwe, we will hinder the long term outlook for this team. Such a policy would virtually guarantee mediocrity.

I agree here. Signing 30 year old plus free agents needs to be the exception not the rule. As is posted earlier there is going to be a big pool of 26,27 and 28 year old free agents with good starting experience who could really help if you get your scouting right for scheme fit and dont get too jumpy early with the cheque book. The pool is so big this year there will be some really good value deals to be done if you avoid jumping in feet first.

[SkinFaninOKC]

I hope we win several games, I don't care about draft position, we have to be REALLY REALLY bad next season to even have a shot at Andrew Luck. As for free agents and the money we need to spend I hope we sign a player that is willing to play for more than just a check, that's all any Redskins fan would want at this point.

As for being REALLY REALLY bad, we won't be that either. Getting a QB is a priority but hoping for Andrew Luck isn't good in any way, shape, or form. And for you Landry Jones lovers, in no way would I like to see him in a Redskins uniform. He is a backup at best. Bob Stoops may have had great college QB's but only one has translated into NFL caliber talent and the jury is still out on that.

[The Tris]

The coaching staff I can appreciate to an extent Tris man. Shanahan's got the unenviable task of trying to balance the here and now in today's "what have you done for me lately?" NFL against the long term future.

This is the fundamental problem with having a HC as a GM. It takes extraordinary vision and commitment for a HC to think about the long term plan over the immediate needs.

HC are fundamentally always "win now". Which is why that in most cases, a strong GM with total control is needed to properly run a team. Someone who can get the coaches back and say "Your job is safe no matter what the record is, as long as you follow the plan."

We have never had such a GM under Snyder.

[Mahons21]

Well that speaks to the second problem of the past decade - the trading of draft picks so there was no young talent on the roster to hold down.

Sounds like the main problem to me.

For the first time in a decade we have a lot of young talent in many of the positions where people are advocating signing FA starters.

People on an internet message board.

In addition many of the positions where we have young talent and there's been the possibility of signing a FA we lack depth at:

DE: Only Carriker and Jenkins on the roster as of now

CB: Hall/Barnes on guys on roster as of now

NT: I hope Maake is gone, meaning Bryant/Neild 7th rd draft pick are the only people at NT

WR: I will be extremely upset of we try to attain one other than Moss

RT: Our young talent is currently a PS player, other than that we have Heyer or Hicks.

Interior o-line: Something needs to be changed to get the aging Rabach out of the starting lineup.

Point being we need to sign someone at many of these positions, whether or not that person is a starter we're yet to see, but this FA class will be decently sized and will most likely have a sizeable impact on the season.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Each to their own, but I think your being real harsh on Stoops and OU's recruiting.

Sadly injury's did for Jason White, so we'll never know what he could of been. But he sure had a **** load of potential. I guess strictly speaking the jury is still out on a player coming off his rookie year. But he sure did a heck of a lot of good in his first year as a pro without a great deal of talent around him. Time will out on Landry Jones. But if he keeps on progressing at the rate he has thus far then "a back-up at best" is the very last thing he'll be in the pro's.

Hail.

[The Tris]

Sounds like the main problem to me.

I agree. But allegedly that has changed.

What remains to be seen is if our approach to FA has changed.

People on an internet message board.

If we couldn't specuate on here, there'd be a lot less threads.

That being said, there have been numerous media outlets linking the Redskins with FAs. Some is BS, some probably is rooted in fact, but ES is hardly the only place that is speculating and advocating signing X, Y, and Z FAs.

[texasthunder]

It is not about age...it is about talent and ability. The problem the Skins have had in the past is signing free agents who could produce to the level of their contract. The youngest any free agent is likely to be is about 26. Why? because most talented college players sign a 4 or 5 year contract. So when you say that a 28 year old is "too old", you are left with looking at a very small pool of players.

A 30 year old can easily have 4-5 years left; and often it is 4-5 years of their prime playing years. People need to stop looking at age alone. That is only one criteria that goes into selecting a player. If you replace a 38 year old Philip Daniels with a 30 year old high performing DE like Cullen Jenkins, you just made your team 8 years younger and added a quality pass rushing player.

Stop with the tunnel vision. If you want to live off of undrafted free agents, your team is going to such badly if that is your GM strategy. A quality football team has a nice mixture of high quality veterans and youth.

The key is having the football IQ to select quality players in the draft and free agency. This team sorely lacked that kind of player personnel evaluator for ten years.

Thank you !!!

I am not sure who came up with the arbitrary age of 30, I suppose it just sounded nice.

There are going to be hits and misses in both the draft and free agency, but as long as the FO doesnt write up stupid contract that put the future in peril, then I

really dont see the harm in signing a top tiered player.

And so far this regime has shown they know how to write contracts.

[Oldfan]

NLC 1054 ~ You're right; Atogwe is a short term improvement. But he's still an improvement, and he fills a hole that couldn't be filled via any other means.

Why couldn’t the FS be filled via any other means?

You keep talking about younger guys getting playing time. What younger player has the kind of upside that would make the coaches look and say "we don't have to fill this hole, we have a guy here that can play"?

I don’t know. What I do know is that a 30-year old vet is very unlikely to be a long-term solution.

I know Kareem Moore was hurt, but everyone on the defense was playing hurt. He can't tackle. He takes poor angles. He's a liability in coverage. It's obvious that without SIGNIFICANT improvement, he's not going to be any sort of long term answer at the free safety position. So are we just supposed to keep playing him? And hope some sort of magical light switch flicks on and he'll suddenly be better at all things we can clearly see on the field he's bad at? And we're not coaches. I bet the coaches bang their head against the wall watching Moore play.

Kareem Moore might not be the long term answer, but there’s a very high probability that Atogwe is only a short term answerr... and Moore comes cheaply.

So you bring in O.J Atogwe to get some frakking stability at the position, so at least for the next 3 or 4 seasons that's NOT something you have to worry about. You draft guys like Gomes, and you make Gomes and Moore compete to be the back-up to O.J Atogwe, so you have two people driving each other to be better. Then, you give whoever wins the second spot on the depth chart his opportunities to rotate in and out of the line-up, to spell O.J when he needs a Gatorade break, to come in on certain blitz packages and nickel and dime formations.

You put the guy in live game situations without putting the whole game on a young guy who would be forced to learn on the fly in a truncated off season. And then, maybe when O.J's 33 and his skills are declining, maybe you have a mature, ready player already on your roster, already in his prime, already to go in the event O.J goes down, and instead of having to go back and draft another free safety and develop him all over again and start him and hope he works out.

That's how you develop depth on your football team and set yourself up so that when someone leaves/retires/gets injured, the team doesn't miss a beat. I don't think people understand that.

You plan is fine for a team like Green Bay, Pittsburgh or New England. Or maybe a team that is only a FS away from being championship caliber. Ours needs to generate more young talent before we can be that patient.

[The Tris]

Bob Stoops may have had great college QB's but only one has translated into NFL caliber talent and the jury is still out on that.

Jeff Tedford may have had great college QBs, but only one has translated into NFL caliber talent. I guess we should never draft a Tedford QB again.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft05/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2039797

Tedford has insisted Rodgers possesses more natural athleticism than his other students who were chosen in the first round. But when you watch Rodgers on tape, he displays all the signature Tedford mechanics, including the manner in which he holds the ball high, up around the ear-hole of his helmet.

The technique is known, in Tedford-talk, as putting the ball "on the shelf." It has yet, though, to put any of his pupils on the top shelf among NFL quarterbacks. And the guess is that Rodgers will struggle as much as his predecessors from the Tedford school have in making the transition to the NFL.

What were your thoughts on Locker? Because using your logic, he is a can't miss NFL QB, based on Sarkisian's track record.

That is, your logic is pretty faulty.

[addicted]

It is not about age...it is about talent and ability.

...

Stop with the tunnel vision. If you want to live off of undrafted free agents, your team is going to such badly if that is your GM strategy. A quality football team has a nice mixture of high quality veterans and youth.

Thank you for saying this. That was a great refreshing post. It's not about age. London Fletcher is a BAMF and he's old! Should we just dump his ass because he's old and ignore the fact dudes motor still runs and he is a probowler? Of course not

Not only that SHF, but let's say we add the named vets. And we become competitive to the extent of muddling through to an around .500 season. In a 2012 draft full of top quality QB talent, we've just set ourselves back even further for the sake of short term gratification.

Two quick points here:

1. Even if we go 0-16 this year what guarentee do you have that says we will take a QB? There isn't one. That's a point you seem to be forgetting. There is no guarentee that Shanny likes any of the QB's coming out next year. Would you be happy tanking the season and then watching us pass on a QB? Could happen if this draft was any indication

2. We have to spend money. Sorry but that's the way it is. Remember the draft where New Orleans gave us all those picks? What's to stop us this year from building a bad ass team which is missing a QB and next year we trading away multiple picks to get the guy we want? Nothing. And if we are truely one QB away from greatness that would be a move we should make. I don't subscribe to the dumbass idea floating on this forum we are the suckiest we have been in the last decade. You don't get the wins we did last year with a suck ass team. We aren't that far away.