skinsfan242 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 PLEASE make this happen. Think of the front 7 (with age). Jenkins 22/Jenkins30, Colefield27/Neild22/Bryant25, Carricker28/?? Kerrigan22/Henson23?, Alexander28/Riley24, Fletcher35, Orakpo25/Wilson26. Not to mention the secondary is shaping up really nice. Landy 26, Otogwe 30, Hall 27, Wilson 27 It all starts up front. This is not an old defense at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I'm sure the FO has a plan to beef up the o-line. Remember, Shanny's specialty is creating household RB names from 'nobodys', and that starts with the line. Rabach will be replaced with a better player. And I like this signing. Jenkins played well last year, and brings vetern leadership. I swear, these threads are worse than political tailgate threads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Let's not forget Art we moved out a 23 year old DE, whatever you think about his prospects, for a 30 year old wide out who was the second of two brought in. Again, I really like the Cofield and Wilson moves. They fit perfectly into what I thought we were doing. As has cutting Daniels and Rabach, and off loading that disgrace to NE. But the receiver moves for one, when we had a pretty good looking core to move forward with and develop, and the difference in age swaps between Jarmon and Jenkins are not suggesting we're as fully committed to the future to me as I thought. Regardless of how Beck plays, our D alone might win us the extra games to get to .500 or so, and that leaves us high and dry to where I believe the top guns will go next spring. And we aren't trading a kings ransom to move up.to a top 5 spot. If we'd of won by progression this year in a season you could risk the young guys it would of been one thing and a nice bonus. To do it by design with vets. leaves us in the same old tired position. Let's just say I'm a little flat for the first time through the new regime. Hail. I liked Jarmon, but not for our defense. Jarvis Jenkins is bigger, as young and at least as bright a young prospect for our defense than Jarmon was. Jarmon got us a player capable of being a starting No. 2 wideout capable of 60 possession receptions. I think where you're wrong is you're suggesting we replaced Jarmon with Cullen Jenkins. We didn't. We replaced Jarmon with Jarvis Jenkins. We replaced a guy drafted for the 4-3 who has .5 sacks in 16 regular season appearances with a guy drafted for the 3-4. Cullen Jenkins replaces Daniels. I LOVED Daniels, but, we legitimately got younger and better overall at both spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santanathegreat Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hey Gibbs Hog Heaven.... hypothetical question: if we traded London Fletcher for Jeremy Jarmon, would you be for it or against it? Because honestly, I'm trying hard to understand your line of reasoning. You're so hung up on the age of the player, totally disregarding the FACT that the player is unproductive and a bad fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Oh, I was just making the comparison in age between the two. I didn't for one minute mean it to come across as a like-for-like move. My bad for not clarifying. To me, if your going to accept the need for a complete overhaul, as we have, and commit to a rebuild, 30 year old FA's with a recent injury history are not the way to go about that, however well they fit in the interim. The same with the Denver wide out. (I doubt Stallworth comes close to making the cut, but then after last year and Williams and Galloway, who knows.). If we were close to contending, I can see the worth in that move. But we aren't. And it just stunts the development of one of the younger guys we've put together over the past two years. I appreciate Shanahan is caught between looking to the future, and safe guarding his job in today's "win now" NFL. But at least be honest about it instead of lulling us into thinking we were looking two or three years down the line for this to all come to fruition. ---------- Post added July-28th-2011 at 10:30 AM ---------- Hey Gibbs Hog Heaven.... hypothetical question: if we traded London Fletcher for Jeremy Jarmon, would you be for it or against it? Because honestly, I'm trying hard to understand your line of reasoning.You're so hung up on the age of the player, totally disregarding the FACT that the player is unproductive and a bad fit. Hard to be productive when you've had next to no chance. He was, outside of Orakpo, who's now established as a LB, our best rush end IMHO. And I personally don't buy for one minute he wasn't a good fit for a 34. He'd worked on bulking himself up, and had been productive in the limited snaps he saw. Now, we'll never know one way or the other if he would of fully transitioned to a 34 end. And on a team a zillion miles from contending, in the midst of a supposed full rebuild, I'd personally rather of found out than not. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCranon21 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Jarmon is a 4-3 end, and not a 3-4 end. There is nothing wrong with a 30 year old DE. Yes he's been injured, but I'm thinking since we drafted J. Jenkins, he will get more minutes as his experience goes up. Sometimes you have to sign a vet in order to protect the younger prospect. Unless he's a start right now type of player, I love this move in getting Cullen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 We haven't overpaid for a single FA so far this year. Stop talking out your ***. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always A Commander Never A Captain Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/28/jason-babin-is-headed-to-the-eagles/sorry to disappoint.... Actually, that's great news. Historically guys like Babin have huge dropoffs and wind up being FA busts. So I'm glad that not only did we not get him, but a division rival is now stuck with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HogHeaven84 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 On its face this signing looks at least half-way good. If this goes through you assume he brings experience and a lot of talent and creates more potential for pressure on the QB. However, I have mixed emotions about this move, and if I were GM, I'm not sure I'd pull the trigger. 1.) He is 30...which isn't that big of a deal, BUT how many quality years does the team think he has left? 2.) His contract NEEDS to reflect #1.....I'm sorry but I'm hoping Mr. Allen doesn't pull some sort of Cerrato-esque move and sign him to a 6 year deal worth 48 mil with 25 guaranteed. I don't know what the market is on the guy, but I think I'm questioning how much he's worth in the long run. 3.) As per #1, #2, ware trying to rebuild, right? So in another 2-3 years we should be set up for a run (if all goes well) At 33-34 how much do we expect him to contribute? The more players we add, the more I get nervous that the FO thinks that John Beck is the LONG TERM answer at QB. I don't mind him starting this year though-just makes me nervous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 only if he drinks out of the same fountain as pd, is this good for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SittingBull Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 I think the contract will be fair for both sides. If we were going to overspend he would have been signed already. The longer this takes to get him signed the better the deal will be for the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 so by some of your all's reasoning, we should have let Tana sign with someone else because he's 32? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevincollateral Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 wikipedia says we signed him to 4yr deal...haha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullen_Jenkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B55Green Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Just saw that on twitter haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevincollateral Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 also wikipedia says we signed nate clements....gotta love the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Clements wait! now they edited it out. said we signed him on july 28th. but it still says washington redskins no 22 (for now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus71 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 What? We signed Nate Clements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevincollateral Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 What? We signed Nate Clements? im sure its someone jacking around on wikipedia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBnotBlades Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 What? We signed Nate Clements? Wikipedia is horribly unreliable for up to the minute information because people can go on and change whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampEm Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 wikipedia says we signed him to 4yr deal...hahahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullen_Jenkins If you really want to get a laugh out of wikipedia type in Vinny Cerrato, then hit the "View History" tab in the top right hand corner. His page was vandalized about every ten minutes for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevincollateral Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Wikipedia is horribly unreliable for up to the minute information because people can go on and change whatever they want. i know..it is just funny. thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Let's not forget Art we moved out a 23 year old DE, whatever you think about his prospects, for a 30 year old wide out who was the second of two brought in. Again, I really like the Cofield and Wilson moves. They fit perfectly into what I thought we were doing. As has cutting Daniels and Rabach, and off loading that disgrace to NE. But the receiver moves for one, when we had a pretty good looking core to move forward with and develop, and the difference in age swaps between Jarmon and Jenkins are not suggesting we're as fully committed to the future to me as I thought. Regardless of how Beck plays, our D alone might win us the extra games to get to .500 or so, and that leaves us high and dry to where I believe the top guns will go next spring. And we aren't trading a kings ransom to move up.to a top 5 spot. If we'd of won by progression this year in a season you could risk the young guys it would of been one thing and a nice bonus. To do it by design with vets. leaves us in the same old tired position. Let's just say I'm a little flat for the first time through the new regime. Hail. I understand where you're coming from. However, maybe look at the glass a little differently: 1. They drafted a bunch of WRs, who might all be very very good in a few years. But without the offseason workouts, their development has been delayed. WRs are notorious for being slow to adapt to the pro game, and they already have a question at QB. So it makes sense to bring in a few "cheap and available" vets who can produce now while the younger WRs are groomed. I understand that the best way to get experience is to, well, get experience. However, if you're trying to develop a QB, WRs and OL all at the same time, you're just going to stunt everybody's growth. 2. As far as trading a young DE for an older WR, I'm ok with it because chances are the young DE wasn't going to play or was going to be cut because he didn't fit into the scheme. So while the WR is 30 years old, you could look at it as getting something from nothing. If they didn't want Jarmon, and he wasn't going to contribute, you get what you can for him that can be productive, and move on. 3. They did release a number of key older vets including Daniels and Rabach, and a not so key one with Roydell Williams.. So they are culling a number of vets to make way for younger players that fit their offense. 4. You can't build a team with ONLY young guys. The only team to do that ever was the cowboys of the 90's. When the entire team was the same age. But almost all succesful teams have some young guys and some older, wiser guys. It's a mix. The real problem is that the older guys that the 'Skins had over the past several years were just not that great. So in addition to adding younger guys, they had to replace a lot of the older guys also. 5. Just looking at the roster that Vinny put together going into the 2009 season, you have to feel much more confident that this bunch has the possibility to be both more talented and also better compensated, so even if one or two of these guys don't work out, there's no real long term cost. The one HUGE mistake that the current regime made was with McNabb. Essentially we traded a 2 and a 4 for 2 6's and 3/4 of a year of bad QB play. The IDEA of McNabb I don't disagree with. Get a vet QB in here who can be a stabilizing force while you retool the rest of the roster and then you can think about QB 2-3 years down the road. Great plan. Used by many before. The execution was atrocious. That's been the one truly terrible move they have made. They have tried to recover from it as best they could, though. Anyway, don't be glum. Footballs back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 On its face this signing looks at least half-way good. If this goes through you assume he brings experience and a lot of talent and creates more potential for pressure on the QB. However, I have mixed emotions about this move, and if I were GM, I'm not sure I'd pull the trigger. 1.) He is 30...which isn't that big of a deal, BUT how many quality years does the team think he has left? 2.) His contract NEEDS to reflect #1.....I'm sorry but I'm hoping Mr. Allen doesn't pull some sort of Cerrato-esque move and sign him to a 6 year deal worth 48 mil with 25 guaranteed. I don't know what the market is on the guy, but I think I'm questioning how much he's worth in the long run. 3.) As per #1, #2, ware trying to rebuild, right? So in another 2-3 years we should be set up for a run (if all goes well) At 33-34 how much do we expect him to contribute? The more players we add, the more I get nervous that the FO thinks that John Beck is the LONG TERM answer at QB. I don't mind him starting this year though-just makes me nervous I think if you look at Jenkins as a good guy to learn from our guys we just drafted could be ready by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasjhughes Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 AdamSchefter: Redskins reached agreement with former Cowboys DE Stephen Bowen on a 5-year, $27.5 million deal that includes $12.5 million in guarantees. [via Twitter] No cullen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Bye Cullen. Your agent pushed the envelope too far. We don't overpay anymore. Welcome Bowens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampEm Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 They could still get Jenkins and have Bowen as well. Bye Bye Adam Carriker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.