Spurrier takes not-so-subtle jab at Skins front office this evening

[Even Madder]

What people seem to mistake here is that we could have done it all. We could have signed all the players we signed who've been very successful for us by in large, AND we could have added more guys to the defensive line. We could have predicted Noble would have gotten hurt removing an ideal cog for this defensive system and had a half dozen Pro Bowlers waiting in the wings.

This is starting to sound more and more like a fishing story. I guess Noble is the big one that got away.

No one says we could have done it all. Lots of people would have been satisfied with an inexperienced and weak backfield and subpar TEs. Everyone was OK with relatively weak safeties.

But the half-measures on the DL were atrocious. The Skins went into camp with no one but a 40-year-old selfish drunk driver who could rush the passer. They barely started camp before they cut their only serviceable DT. They replaced their DTs with quantity, not quality. That was a big mistake, and a tough one to overcome with just good coaching.

Same with the lack of a backup QB. Just a dumb move.

Those are two really important positions -- DL and QB.

[Art]

And again, EM, until you can figure out a single name we could have and should have gone after instead of who we did, you're just whistling dixie. You have no point. You're simply making statements to hear yourself make them.

You know exactly what we did in the offseason. You know who we offered money to. You know who took it and who didn't. You know who we got. Now, who would you have gotten. Figure out who we missed out on. Then let us know how we could have done things differently.

See, I have it easy. I'd not have gotten Coles at all. I'd have taken a defensive lineman at No. 13 if it killed me. I understand getting Coles though. I certainly understand he was a lot better than the guys we could have gotten at No. 13 as it turned out. So, in a way I'm glad my concept of the offseason was ignored. Still, Warren or McDougle or even Haynes could have been just what we needed, in time, for the defensive line.

And that means no Coles. In the end, I suppose I'm glad we did what we did knowing what you suggest and what I supported means not having Coles.

The backup QB is simply not really an issue. Again, who is the backup in Green Bay? Tennessee? Atlanta? New York Giants? Dallas? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. A couple of teams have pretty good backups.

We certainly weren't a team that had a great one in Rob Johnson. We certainly wouldn't have been a team with a great one had we kept Wuerffel -- though I think he'd have helped us out a ton. The guy you hope never sees the field as a player is not really the measure of a successful offseason for the most part.

And, if I'm not mistaken, most people here -- not me of course but most -- felt Johnson was a clear upgrade over Wuerffel due to the intolerable hatred of Wuerffel.

[Om]

Quoth Art:

See, I have it easy. I'd not have gotten Coles at all. I'd have taken a defensive lineman at No. 13 if it killed me. I understand getting Coles though. I certainly understand he was a lot better than the guys we could have gotten at No. 13 as it turned out. So, in a way I'm glad my concept of the offseason was ignored. Still, Warren or McDougle or even Haynes could have been just what we needed, in time, for the defensive line.

And that means no Coles. In the end, I suppose I'm glad we did what we did knowing what you suggest and what I supported means not having Coles.

The backup QB is simply not really an issue. Again, who is the backup in Green Bay? Tennessee? Atlanta? New York Giants? Dallas? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. A couple of teams have pretty good backups.

Well, there it is. You say you wouldn't have gotten Coles. Why? Becuase you knew (okay, suspected) that the the DL needed help far more. If we could see that, Art ... you know?

I believe you've said the problem with my line of thinking (correct me if I'm wrong in reading it that way) is that one can't have both the moves we DID make and then kvetch about the ones we DIDN'T. Well, my answer is that I'm not. I'm saying that maybe our front office erred badly in deciding which areas of need needed to be addressed first.

I've told you I'm not qualified to scan NFL and NFLE and AFL and college rosters for suitable DL help, and to know which players may be available via the draft, trade, or any other vehicle. And that is the reason I will not waste either of our time trying to come up with a list.

That, to me, is the job of an NFL-quality front office.

But you know what? This is all meaningless at this point, in context of this past season. What's done is done. For whatever reasons - bad GM'ing, bad luck, bad coaching or some combination thereof - this team was stuck with a sadly inadequate DL in 2003. One that I still think hamstrung it from day one.

So I'm left hoping that it's you, and not I, who is right about our current front office brain trust and their ability to conceive and execute a professional plan; not only for the DL, but for the entirety of the whole rag tag operation.

Honestly, I'd submit that given the results we've witnessed under their watch, there is painfully little (other than fan's eye view analyses of player movement and coaching strategies) to indicate that that is the case. I don't see chemistry or direction or even much in the way of professionalism at any level of the organization. And I certainly don't see wins. I don't see enough up top to convince me that the clear answer is simply once again set out to try to find better coaches.

But this is the season of hope, after all ... so here's to you being right my brother.

*

By the way, just to be argumentative for a moment: in Green Bay, Tennessee, Atlanta and New York, the QB situation is a little bit more settled than it was here in Riverside. Maybe backup QB was rightly not quite the concern in those towns as maybe it should have been here.

*

Final Edit (promise) -- sorry about all the editting, folks. Premature submission.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Booma,

Now you're just making things up. Name the stud on Dallas. Name the stud on Minnesota. Not the guy who some people call a stud, but the guy who actually is PLAYING like one. Name the stud on Kansas City even.

Dallas: Glover and Ellis have both played extremely well this year

Minn: Even though Hovan isn't having a good year he is still way better then what we have. Williams is having a monster year for a rookie DT.

KC: Sims and Holliday are better then what we have and you can make a case for Hicks.

Art our line consists of all backups and one guy who shouldn't even be playing anymore :doh:

If Russel was in shape, then we would have one legit DL.

[Art]

Om, this isn't exactly a surprise, is it? We got Coles for the contract we paid for him AND what else? Right. Our first round pick which was No. 13. Now, I'd have gone with a defensive lineman if it KILLED me. I would have waited for a receiver for the following year.

But, here's the kicker. Coles is better right now than anyone we could have had at No. 13. Coles is better now than any free agent available this year. And Coles was a decision, though I'd have made another, that is difficult to argue with.

Any decision for a defensive lineman would have inevitably meant no Coles. Given those choices though I'd have been damned, I'd have gone with a defensive lineman because I'd have refused to wait a moment longer to save that position.

But, perhaps the front office is smarter than we might think. Even smarter than I am.

Perhaps the front office knew that the free agent crop of defensive lineman was weak last year and better this year. Perhaps the front office knew the free agent crop of receivers was great last year and weak this year.

Perhaps the front office looked down on a sheet comprised of need areas and saw "Defensive line. Receiver......" and said, "Gosh, why not get the receiver filled now since it's a good year for that and get the defensive line next year when it's a better year for that?"

I have no idea if that happened. But, if my choice were to simply boil down to Coles or No. 13 in a vacuum the choice is the most simple in the world. Of course you take Coles. OBVIOUSLY you take Coles. Unquestionably you take Coles. Now, I'm dumb, because I'd have taken a defensive lineman because our pick wasn't in a vacuum and it WAS made for a team that has ignored the defensive line in the draft for a decade.

And then again, perhaps I even am spending too much time paying attention to history while ignoring our present. What would help a young QB more? A defensive lineman or an elite receiver? My guess is receiver. My guess is you'd have a hard time arguing that point, though you did seem to point toward the other side in your previous post.

The clear direction we've shown the last two years shouldn't be possible to miss. The clear checklist of needs that's been hit the last two years shows clear ideas behind the moves. Clear rationale. Clear thought. Clear planning. And, once again, a breathtaking execution in the offseason demonstrating such organization and professionalism that saying you don't see any makes me wonder how you can miss it.

Were you drifting off when Redskins One was flying around the clock to assure we got the targeted guys we wanted to look at first? Did you miss Snyder's wining and dining of agents in his effort to get an upper hand on other teams by having a closer relationship with agents by making them feel less like the lying, cheating scum they are?

We identified a list of names at a list of prices that we wanted to get. And we went about getting them with the sort of precision only available to teams that have a clear plan in place. Now, it may prove incorrect that we have a plan.

It may prove to be that while it looks like things are going the right way with 21 of 22 starters under contract and words to the effect that we know where we need to further improve that the evident direction is a ruse. One masking the coming storm of change that is sure to come, invalidating any continuity you might have gleaned from the last two offseasons.

If that happens I'll be the first to recognize the fact that we clearly didn't have a set path to success and we clearly won't achieve success until we diagram that plan out and follow it to its conclusion.

In the end I look at Coles and think to myself that given the choice between he and anyone else we could have had along the defensive line, if I didn't happen to be so stubborn, I'd recognize the intelligence of that decision. And, therefore, I do recognize it.

If we fail to follow through with some coherent method for helping fix the defensive line THIS year, I might explode, though, so, understanding Coles and forgiving another offseason of inattention may be two different things.

*

As for your BTW, I'd ask how things were more settled in those cities than they were here. We were fixed on Ramsey. Our success was based on his. He wasn't as fixed as those other players were. But he was the guy who was our starter. As firmly and unquestioned as any of those other cities.

His failure meant ours. And his failure meant addressing the QB position after this year. Fortunately we won't have to do that right now. But, let's pretend having a veteran starter is meaningful in the discussion and lets just keep the conversation to young QBs.

Who's the backup in Detroit? Houston? Atlanta? New England even. Find me the teams with satisfactory backups behind either a veteran QB or a relatively young one who is still unproven. You won't find many because there aren't that many good QBs out there. The best you can hope for is a talented guy with some starting experience who might not spike himself if allowed to play. I'm not sure we accomplished that. But it's not that much to accomplish.

[Om]

Damn, brother, you're the only guy I know who makes me look succinct.

Couple of good avenues in that piece that I'd like to talk about, but don't have time to do them justice at the moment ... and may not until after X-mas. Lemme just stick a metaphoric bookmark right here and hope to find you still feisty and at least mostly sober on the other side.

[Even Madder]

The backup QB is simply not really an issue. Again, who is the backup in Green Bay? Tennessee? Atlanta? New York Giants? Dallas? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. A couple of teams have pretty good backups.

Actually, if you look at the teams with young inexperienced QBs, most of them have an experienced backup -- San Diego has Flutie, Jets have Testaverde, Atlanta has Doug Johnson, Tennessee has Neil O'Donnell... and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. These guys aren't the greatest in the world, but they are certainly steady experienced hands who can step in capably (not that well, but capably) if the young QB falters. Who did the Skins bring in? Rob Johnson. Rob Johnson, the human sack highlight reel. And no one else.

You say it isn't an issue, but it certainly became an issue, didn't it? The front office undercut Spurrier by cutting Wuerffel to keep Johnson, only to have to backtrack midseason, cut Johnson, and find someone on the scrap heap. It didn't matter much because the season was already over then, but if that had happened to a team competing for a playoff spot, you can bet your beloved front office would have some 'splaining to do.

No, no one remembers who Green Bay has as a backup, but Favre hasn't missed a game in 10 years. I wouldn't try to build an argument around that.

You say I'm just whistling Dixie because I haven't proposed a myriad of alternate universes where the Skins made the moves I would have liked. Not my job. The front office is responsible for assembling the roster, and they failed to build any pass rush at all and they had no backup QB. Those are huge failings.

I will tell you that I wouldn't have cut Big Daddy without a plan for a replacement. And I certainly would have tried to find a replacement for Gardener in February rather than waiting until August. How's that?

You say you would have skipped on Coles and taken a defensive lineman at 13. That would be Ty Warren. 19 tackles and 1 sack this year, right? That might be a good move down the road, but certainly wouldn't have helped much this year.

[Even Madder]

So Art... are you taking the bet, or admitting you're wrong?

Or just ducking the issue?

[Art]

EM,

What bet am I supposed to take? Perhaps I've missed it.

As for your post here, it would perhaps help you to know that Tennessee doesn't have O'Donnell. It might be helpful to realize that Doug Johnson isn't by any definition an experienced backup when Vick went down. San Diego does have Flutie. Funny how that's satisfactory to you when the guy we had actually beat Flutie out despite immense fan support in Buffalo.

And, again, look at teams with young QBs. Like Atlanta, Detroit and Houston. A real argument can be made that Rob Johnson provided a better experienced, better talent at backup QB than any of those teams have. So, again, can I ask you to lay out which teams have satisfactory backups? Testaverde I'll give you.

As for the rest, let me say that it absolutely IS your job to outline who you would have taken instead of the guys we took if you are going to be critical of the moves we made. You don't get an exemption. You don't get to simply say we should have done something other than we did without explaining it so we know if it makes sense and is something you've thought about, or whether, as it appears, it's simply something you need to say over and over without giving a moment of thought to it.

We know the players we picked up this offseason. You need to outline which players we passed by in order to validate there was a mistake. Or, you need to simply admit your position is a hypothetical one you lack the knowledge to express in a convincing fashion and is more of an impulse response than anything else.

I agree that selecting Warren wouldn't have helped us much this year. Which is why I was probably wrong to have demanded a defensive lineman at the expense of Coles. I'm glad this is clearly a situation where the front office got it right and I got it wrong. Like you are now.

[Art]

EM. Appears I did miss one of your posts. Let me reply here.

You are clearly one of the more delusional guys here -- and that's saying something. Everything the FO touches turns to gold for you, doesn't it? You even think the moves they didn't make were the "deal of the century."

Actually, the delusional aspect here appears to be on your part, not mine. First, we denied shopping Smoot. Second, the report was that when Smoot's name came up in trade conversations that we essentially asked for a couple of first round picks and Rogers -- or some other similarly outrageous response -- that the discussions outlined two things.

First, we weren't sending Smoot anywhere because we asked for the sun and stars. And, second, had Detroit said ok to what we asked for we'd have been building shrines in our pleasure at fleecing the Lions for that much for Smoot. No, I don't think moves we didn't make are the "deal of the century". I said the reports involving that trade suggest that had we actually been TRYING to move Smoot at the price tag we attached, we'd be dancing in the streets at successfully making that move. Hell, I love Smoot and would admit we couldn't have ever gotten what we asked for, meaning, we weren't really talking trade for him.

I never said I want a blow up. I said I expect it.

Gotcha.

No, we aren't. It's likely that you'll see significant changes to the starting 22. On offense, I'd guess you'll see a new RB (Canidate is done), TE (Flem is a goner, I hope), and maybe a center. So far, so good -- only 3 out of 11 change, which would be nice.

I doubt Canidate is done. He's under contract and will almost certainly be a part of the roster if not as the starter entering the year. With the Rock's shine and Betts' moments I'm not sure we really have a defined "starting" running back. Between the three I'd be surprised if one isn't our starter even if it happens to still be Canidate. I think we'd probably like to see Flemister upgraded, either with a surprise return from Royal, or through the draft. I think he's as sure a starter as we'll see replaced in the offseason on offense.

Center is another interesting one. Who is our actual starter at this point? Moore or Friedmann? Same at left guard. Is Dockery our starter or Fiore? I doubt we'll have a center starting other than one of those two. I doubt we'll have a left guard starting other than the two mentioned here. Given that, I think we could start two players and you might be able to say we swapped out two starters.

To me, replacing a starter is doing so from off the roster. Pulling a drafted player in or a free agent to replace someone. If we can agree that is a fair definition I expect, assuming a plan is in place, one starter replaced on offense.

On defense, I'd be surprised if we didn't see Bruce Smith, one or even two of the tackles, possibly even Wynn, possibly both safeties, and maybe Champ go. That's 7, and you might even see a change at LB, which would be 8. Now it's not likely that all 8 will actually change, but are you willing to place a bet right now based on your convictions?

Yes. I'm willing to bet we won't change out eight starters on defense. You name a price and we'll bet it. Now, we have to assume Smith is gone and we need to upgrade the starter there as someone better than Upshaw who's still here. Holsey is a free agent and I don't think we want to keep him as a starter. I'd like him replaced. Probably even Wynn as well. I can see three of four along the line if everything falls into place.

And if it does that probably means the end of Ohalete and Bailey because we'll have devoted a lot to the front in this case. I could see as many as six starters ultimately totally changed out with people not on the roster now -- or even from the roster who don't have any substantial starting experience like Pierce for Armstead.

More likely we're going to bring in two or three different defensive lineman -- with Russell being one of the three if he's brought back -- while swapping out Zellner, Smith and Holsey. The defense is a tricky thing. I'd like to see us upgrade Ohalete but keep him on the roster. I'd like to see us upgrade Smith/Upshaw and Holsey.

But I don't suspect we'll see a major blow up. Perhaps, but I doubt it. I doubt it based on the premise that a plan means sticking to the guys you have under contract for a long enough period to time out the cap hits as you planned when you signed these guys.

I'll bet you that at least 4 of the 11 starters on defense change and 2 of the starters on offense change. That's almost 30% of the starters -- will you take the bet? Or are you just blowing smoke?

Not sure where I'd be blowing smoke. We have 21 of 22 starters either under contract or under some form of restriction. How many of these players we upgrade -- or attempt to -- from outside the organization SHOULD number at least one on offense and at least two on the defense. In the BEST of worlds a successful offseason could be had with three changes but maintaining two of those former starters as reserves.

We certainly could see the defense change out six players, outright losing Bailey, Ohalete, Smith and Holsey, if not also Wynn -- though his hit is low enoug you'd probably want to keep him as a reserve and for versatility.

I'd like to see us make three changes from outside the organization just along the defensive line -- or including Russell as a guy within the organization but who has a head start on things. If we change out the number of players you suspect could happen we'd have some serious problems next year.

I think in the end what happens with Bailey will ultimately determine what we do and how much change we make. If we keep him I think change will be very low. Perhaps as low as one draft pick. If we lose him, I think you can see a real situation where you'd use that change as an opportunity to make major changes and a youth movement along the front.

Here's the bet: if the Skins change more than 6 starters, you change your avatar to Mrs. Cerrato to reflect your, shall we say, somewhat unnatural love for the pool boy. You can pick anything you like for me if it doesn't happen.

I might just take this bet but we'd have to agree on what defines changing starters, pointing naturally to Dockery and Fiore, Moore and Friedmann, Royal/Chamberlin and Flemister, Upshaw and Smith, even Russell and Holsey MAYBE.

If you're talking about changes from outside the organization in the form of draft picks or free agents we might have a good bet to make. If we're talking about internal changes then we're tapping the continuity I expect to see us tap and I wouldn't think that's the same thing.

[Even Madder]

I might just take this bet

I'm glad you're game. This is gonna be fun.

Here's the bet (again): if the Skins change more than 6 starters, you change your avatar to Mrs. Cerrato to reflect your, shall we say, somewhat unnatural love for the pool boy. You can pick anything you like for me if it doesn't happen.

we'd have to agree on what defines changing starters, pointing naturally to Dockery and Fiore, Moore and Friedmann, Royal/Chamberlin and Flemister, Upshaw and Smith, even Russell and Holsey MAYBE.

Wait -- there are more than 22 starters? Either they changed the rules of football, or I've been drinking too much eggnog.

But good point about these changing starters -- although it does shoot a few holes in your emphatic line about returning starters as starters. I'll give you all those guys except Russell -- he never started. He played something like 15 snaps the past two weeks. That's not like plugging Moore in for Friedman. Same with Chamberlain -- has there been a Chamberlain sighting? Those two guys are midseason additions who haven't played -- you can't argue that's continuity (you really think those guys are coming back? I think they're goners for sure). Would you argue that having Hasselbeck start next year would be continuity? But don't worry, I don't consider Hasselbeck a starter, so we're even. Here are the starters:

QB Ramsey, RB Canidate, FB Cartwright, WR Coles and Gardner, OT Samuels and Jansen, OG Thomas and Dockery, C Friedman.

DT Holsey and Dalton, DE Smith and Wynn, LB Arrington, Armstead, and Trotter, DB Bailey and Smoot, S Bowen and Ohalete.

You get Fiore, Moore, and Royal as your "extra" starters. If they become the starter, I don't get credit, because they're former starters. If Bauman starts for Champ, I do get credit, because that's a big change. You get 25 starters -- damn this eggnog is good. Any changes to the starting 25?

If you're talking about changes from outside the organization in the form of draft picks or free agents we might have a good bet to make. If we're talking about internal changes then we're tapping the continuity I expect to see us tap and I wouldn't think that's the same thing.

Hmmm... oh, hell, just to give you a fighting chance: I'll bet that 4 of the 6 new starters aren't on the current 56 man roster -- so I only get two of the Bauman-for-Champ or Russell-for-Holsey type of major disruptive internal changes. It's funny, though -- wasn't your whole point that the starters will return as starters? But no problem, I've had more than my share of eggnog now.

Finally, to show some mercy, I'll let you decide how long we wear our new monikers, Mrs. Cerrato. Have you picked out a good one for me?

And have a nice Christmas -- seriously.

[Art]

EM,

Continuity tends to be plugging in players from within the roster where you have needs. The Eagles lose players, but don't generally go out and replace them. The promote from within, from guys who know the system, and the other guys around them, making the changes a different sort of change than going out and putting a body from free agency or the draft into the equation.

My emphatic line about returning 21 of 22 starters as under contract or under some restriction is emphatic for the fact that it's true. That we also have situations where we have Dockery and Fiore, Friedmann and Moore, etc., simply adds to the point that we have guys who can be seriously considered starters even behind guys who are starters now -- due to injury at least initially.

This is good and mitigates the need for change. Without Dockery given Fiore's injuries you'd almost certainly have to change this spot out with a new face, as an example.

You also have the situation where either Haley or Noble or both will return to the equation next year. Perhaps lessening the requirement to change bodies out. Perhaps not, depending on the recovery time.

In any case, these two further the internal continuity you are hopefully striving for between offseasons. Even Chamberlain and Russell can't be considered disruptive changes though I agree with you they aren't exactly the same thing as a non-change or swapping a sometime starter out.

Chamberlain and Russell were in similar situations. Both were fat and out of shape and took some time to get into football shape. In the case of Chamberlain it appears he was just a total failure. Russell we have the secret hope we're tanking things with him to get him more cheaply. Both are former Pro Bowl players who would certainly represent an upgrade over projected starters we now have at those positions and both are internal to the organization, know the scheme and players at this point and wouldn't qualify as a major disruptive internal change.

Bauman for Champ probably would because of the perception it's a clear downgrade.

In the end I do think Chamberlain is certainly gone though he's under contract and I expect the tight end position to be upgraded from completely outside the organization. Same with safety and Ohalete. Same with SOMEONE over Smith/Upshaw.

At no point have I given rise to the thought that we have 21 of 22 starters under contract or under our control this offseason with the expression that they would be brought back AS starters. I think what I said was precisely what you quoted me as saying so I'm not sure what you are confused by.

You quoted me as saying and I said, "...we are looking at the potential to return all but a small handful of starters as starters -- moving some into reserve -- while improving a couple of aspects of the team that need improvement."

You've said you could see as many as 50 percent of the starters on this team replaced -- presumably from outside the organization. I see the potential for far less change of this sort. You've settled on the number 6 as your total number of changes. You've worked your way down to 4 as your total number of players come from free agency or through the draft.

I think that's a completely reasonable number. I agree that our tight end should -- and that leaves our starter in reserve which is generally a good thing. I think Smith is gone and his true replacement almost certainly is coming from outside the organization. Holsey is gone and I suspect his replacement will be from outside the organization -- though there IS the Russell factor as that remains a different category of change than going outside the organization. Almost certainly Ohalete will be looked to be upgraded from outside the organization.

We are at four changes we kind of both think are reasoned and possible -- or, as I might have put it and did put it -- a small handful of changes. The potential for more does exist though. The potential for more stems off Bailey. If he goes we'll almost certainly fill his spot from the outside and use the money from not having him to make another change or two on either side of the ball. Bailey alone could trigger something of a domino effect where we do head for more massive change than the potential limited change we have going into the offseason allows.

I just think eight to 11 changes as you've stated are possible really isn't, no matter what sequence of events comes into play and no matter if we agree completely that Russell and Chamberlain count as the sort of change we're discussing.

I think we're almost CERTAIN to have four changes from outside the organization -- or Russell included. If Russell's included I could easily see six as we swap BOTH tackles out with Russell being one and Champ also leaves. That level of change would rise above the potential we have for only making a small handful of changes and I would be wrong in my hope that we are only set to make that small handful of change.

In the end, I would put the number of guys coming strictly from outside our organization as three (with Russell) or four (without Russell) if we have a very successful offseason where we address these key areas as we hope we do. It's the possibility of what we can get for Bailey that would increase this number even substantially.

So while I don't think there's even the slightest bit of a chance we change out 8 of 11 starters on defense as you've outlined as possible, I'll remain secure in the view that we enter the offseason with 21 of 22 starters either under contract or under our control and we enter the offseason with the potential to return all but a small handful of starters as starters, moving others into reserve.

I tend to agree with you that Chamberlain and Russell are a different category to consider than might be Haley and Noble and Fiore. But I also think Chamberlain and Russell are a different category than Bauman.

I'd be satisfied with the potential of Russell and Chamberlain in shape and starting at their positions for us as an improvement that happened to come from players who are already part of the team. I would be less than pleased with Bauman for Champ because it's hard to see that as even a push in terms of ability.

That's probably the distinction I'm allowing myself to draw.

[jbooma]

I have figured out Art's weapon to win debates. Art just words everyone to the point where they don't want to read all of his "hysterical" psycho-blabber

[Art]

Information wins debates, JB. Give it a shot sometime .

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Information wins debates, JB. Give it a shot sometime .

I am shocked you didn't say hysterical :laugh:

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Information wins debates, JB. Give it a shot sometime .

No Art, correct Information wins debates. Not information overload what you are the master at.

Hope you and your family have a happy holiday.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

I am shocked you didn't say hysterical :laugh:

Hysterical only comes into play when there's an utterly thoughtless position or, more, a position so over the top amusing for it's inherent insanity that no other conclusion is possible. Often the case when you speak. Sometimes when EM speaks. Just not here.

[bubba9497]

On Spurrier's radio show, also on WTEM, the Redskins' coach, when asked about having input in personnel decisions this season, said, ``Let's put it this way: I thought I'd be able to select the backup quarterback.''

hmmmmmmmmm

[Even Madder]

My emphatic line about returning 21 of 22 starters as under contract or under some restriction is emphatic for the fact that it's true

This statement is both wrong and disingenious. It's wrong because Flemister, Holsey, Bailey, Flemister, and Friedman are all unrestricted free agents, right? You can't franchise all of them, Mrs Cerrato. So that's 18 of 22 "under contract", and 19 of 22 "under some restriction", unless in your fevered imagination you think one of those bums will be designated a transition player -- Flemister maybe?

And it's disingenious because everyone knows Bruce is gone, so that's 18 of 22. And we're pretty sure Dalton is gone, so that's 17 of 22. Canidate is vulnerable. That's 1 of 22. Both safeties are vulnerable, so that's 14 of 22. Suddenly your entire argument collapses like a house of cards.

At no point have I given rise to the thought that we have 21 of 22 starters under contract or under our control this offseason with the expression that they would be brought back AS starters.

Yes, you did. In fact, you said exactly that:

we are looking at the potential to return all but a small handful of starters as starters

Having the starters return as beckups would be something different, now wouldn't it?

So was that long dissembling missive meant as an attempt to duck the bet? I'll tell you what, Mrs Cerrato, let's go one further: I'll bet you that five of the six new starters come from outside the organization. Happy now? That's 30% of the starters changing, all but one from outside the organization -- and that one has to be a big change, not a Moore-for-Friedman change. No "small handful". No "continuity". And no more ducking the bet. Either say "Yes I accept" or say "I admit I was completely wrong about continuity".

I'm really looking forward to seeing you wearing that dress for a few months, Mrs Cerrato. You've got more than a sporting chance now: the Skins are hard against the salary cap and can't hire any free agents until they figure out what to do with Champ, which probably won't happen until near the draft.

In or out, Mrs Cerrato?

[Even Madder]

Hysterical only comes into play when there's an utterly thoughtless position or, more, a position so over the top amusing for it's inherent insanity that no other conclusion is possible. Often the case when you speak. Sometimes when EM speaks. Just not here.

Yawn... Merry Christmas to you, too, Mrs. Cerrato.

In or out?

[Art]

Reply within.

Originally posted by Even Madder

This statement is both wrong and disingenious. It's wrong because Flemister, Holsey, Bailey, Flemister, and Friedman are all unrestricted free agents, right? You can't franchise all of them, Mrs Cerrato. So that's 17 of 22 "under contract", and 18 of 22 "under some restriction", unless in your fevered imagination you think one of those bums will be designated a transition player -- Flemister maybe?

First, you listed Flemister twice, so worry about your own fevered imagination . Second, I was under the impression he resigned for two years with us. But, that you mention it, he must be a free agent because we cut him and then brought him back meaning his initial contract goes away and I think he was just a one-year player when we brought him back. That error would make it 20 of 22 starters under contract or under some restriction though.

Bailey is going to be franchised. He won't be an unrestricted free agent. You know this. I know this. So, let's pretend we both know this and factor that knowledge in. If in the future it turns out that knowledge is poor we can adjust the conversation accordingly. But, given the error in recollection on Flemister you are right that the total isn't 21 of 22. It's 20 of 22.

Moore is under contract as well and he's been the starter here until his injury kept him out at center. Holsey has been a starter here due to injury to Noble and Haley. You could certainly recognize that fact and still make it 21 of 22, but, for the sake of making it easy, Holsey has been the starter all year and probably has to be accounted as such, certainly.

And it's disingenious because everyone knows Bruce is gone, so that's 17 of 22. And we're pretty sure Dalton is gone, so that's 16 of 22. Canidate is vulnerable. That's 15 of 22. Both safeties are vulnerable, so that's 13 of 22. Suddenly your entire argument collapses like a house of cards.

It's not disingenuous at all. Though your attempt to paint it as such certainly is. Yes, Smith is under contract and we're certainly all hopeful that he's gone. We even can say we know it to be so. But Upshaw has started over Smith for seven weeks in a row now with this week making eight -- unless Smith is given the honor of being announced as a starter in his final game. We certainly hope Upshaw is upgraded in the offseason. But that doesn't remove him from consideration as the starter.

Whether you allow yourself to create situations where someone is vulnerable or not, that doesn't alter the fact that Bowen, Canidate/Rock/Betts and Dalton are under contract. Dalton shouldn't be presumed to be gone at all. I'd be surprised if he is let go, though if Noble is back to full strength they do fill a very similar role. I suspect that won't happen though. Bowen is not at all vulnerable, though Ohalete certainly is as a restricted free agent.

Even assuming your fantasy situation listed above is true, that doesn't alter the fact that we have 20 of 22 (21 of 22 if you count Haley and/or Noble as returning) starters either under contract or under our control and we have the potential to keep the majority of our starting players here with a small handful replaced as starters and a couple of others used in a reserve position.

We are back to the point where you want to make a bet. I'm more than happy to bet with you that nine of our starting players aren't vulnerable at all.

Yes, you did. In fact, you said exactly that:

In the past, EM, where you've gone wrong is when a conversation goes against you, you end up making a situation in which you pretend the English language is difficult to understand. It's really not. And you get to acknowledge such.

No, I have not said that we have 21 of 22 starters under contract or under our control this offseason and all of which will be brought back as starters. You've now said this twice. You've even QUOTED me now TWICE correctly meaning you do understand and have seen what I've said, though you refuse to actually provide even the full second half of the quote.

I've said, "...we are looking at the potential to return all but a small handful of starters as starters -- moving some into reserve -- while improving a couple of aspects of the team that need improvement."

This was at the tail end of a statement saying we have 21 of 22 starters under contract or under some control entering the offseason. As we do, we do enter the offseason with the potential to return all but a small haldful of starters as starters. That statement itself means I've not said we're are returning 21 of 22 starters as starters though that possiblity does exist as painful as it is to consider.

Please don't continue to do this as you know the outcome. The words I've said stand alone. You'll either state them as they are spoken, or you'll not pretend I made statements I didn't. You won't get to continue to say I've said what I haven't because you want to play dumb. We've been down this precise road before.

Having the starters return as beckups would be something different, now wouldn't it?

Somewhat. But since that's precisely what I said, it's different only because it's different and not because it's not exactly what I've said. Again, "...we are looking at the potential to return all but a small handful of starters as starters -- moving some into reserve -- while improving a couple of aspects of the team that need improvement."

See how easy it is? Notice the -- moving some into reserve -- as a neat old statement? I know you do .

So was that long dissembling missive meant as an attempt to duck the bet? I'll tell you what, Mrs Cerrato, let's go one further: I'll bet you that five of the six new starters come from outside the organization. Happy now? That's 30% of the starters changing, all but one from outside the organization -- and that one has to be a big change, not a Moore-for-Friedman change. No "small handful". No "continuity". And no more ducking the bet. Either say "Yes I accept" or say "I admit I was completely wrong about continuity".

I think the response was to explain that you and I are saying similar things with regard to changes. Importantly though, six new starters of 22 is not 30 percent. It's 27 percent . Second, six would be above what I'd like to see, but depending on Bailey I could certainly see six.

What I can't see is the numbers you've offered as 30 percent turnover or 50 percent turnover or only 13 of 22 starters returning as starters. So, I'm more than happy to make a bet. As we enter the offseason with 21 of 22 (for the sake of this statement we're counting Haley and/or Noble) either under contract or under some restriction. We have the potential to only replace a small handful of starters, moving a couple into reserve positions.

As I've said, we will probably bring four guys from outside the organization -- tight end, defensive end, defensive tackle and safety -- to add as starters which is a small handful. Six wouldn't be a small handful and that is a reasonable prediction as well given the questions on Bailey.

If we do swap out six it still won't validate any incorrect status from the statement made. If we swap out 10 or 20 it still won't. We enter the offseason with the potential to maintain continuity. Whether we will or not remains to be seen.

I'm guessing we'll have relative stability and swap out only a small handful of players for those not in the organization now. But I can see how it could be six as well, so, while that would be against my hope, it's certainly possible and reasonable to envision.

It just won't be eight or more as you've used to illustrate possibilities. If you want to make the bet, make it a simple one. I am predicting there will be relative stability. Meaning four changes or fewer among the starting 22 that come from outside the organization.

You are predicting a lack of continuity. We both agree six changes is certainly reasonable to predict as well -- depending on Bailey. So, since you don't think there'll be relative continuity, take eight changes from outside the organization and we'll make a bet.

Six won't happen if Bailey resigns. It will if he doesn't.

I'm really looking forward to seeing you wearing that dress for a few months, Mrs Cerrato. You've got more than a sporting chance now: the Skins are hard against the salary cap and can't hire any free agents until they figure out what to do with Champ, which probably won't happen until near the draft.

In or out, Mrs Cerrato?

We're not hard up against the cap at all. We don't have a vast sum, but we have plenty to make a legitimate move in free agency. Kearse comes to mind if he's not franchised. The worse case scenario that I see is that we franchise Bailey and no one goes for him until AFTER the draft, meaning we're out Bailey -- possibly -- and have no immediate benefit from draft picks.

If Bailey does sign early it opens up a lot more money to play with and make multiple moves rather than one big one like Kearse though so even bringing Bailey back could allow more changes than I envision.

We've done the right thing building this team so that we enter the offseason with 21 of 22 (same Noble and Haley thing) starters under contract or under our control. We need to stabilize the changes made. We have that ability this offseason where we haven't in previous ones. My hope is we utilize that potential to maintain stability.

I don't think your doom scenario is plausible. If you don't think my continuity one is, we'll bet it though.

[Redskins4Life]

Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer

FACT: Snyder has had a policy this season of absolutely no comments to the media during the season about anything.

With the exception of the two times that he had to answer to the media that SOS' job was safe through the year, right?

The rest of it you're right on, tho.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer

Mr. Larry Brown,

Not only did you read way too much into BOTH comments, you totally ignored the fact that snyder has wooed more than one respected GM and has been rebuffed by both. So, don't go around pretending that snyder is unwilling to hire a GM, it just doesn't stand up to facts.

-DB

Problem here is the fact that the danny's reputation as an a$$hole precedes him.

No one wants to work for an a$$hole.

No GM of any reputation/knowledge is going to come here with danny looking over their shoulder and telling them who they think they should draft.

See, GM's have friends. And those freinds check into situations for GM's by asking those in the know how it is to work in certain situations/environments and for certain people.

See, firing all those people when he first got here may have bitten danny in the ass, in more ways than one.

[Even Madder]

Jesus... if you ask Art if it's raining outside, he gives you a 3-hour dissertation on weather patterns in the late middle ages.

So are you in or out?

That error would make it 20 of 22 starters under contract or under some restriction though.

OK, let's add it up for math-challenged Art: 22 starters. Minus four UFAs (Flemister, Holsey, Friedman, and Bailey). That's 18 of 22 under contract, like I said. Add one back in, because they're likely to franchise Bailey, and that's 19 of 22. YOu said 21 of 22, right?

Where was I wrong? I typed Flemister twice, but the numbers were right. Need your glasses?

we have 20 of 22 (21 of 22 if you count Haley and/or Noble as returning) starters either under contract or under our control

Wait a minute -- you're saying that 20 of 22 starter are under contract/control. Who the hell are these 22 starters? If you're counting Haley and Noble and Moore and Upshaw and Fiore, who are you leaving off? Ramsey and Arrington? By my count, you've got 28 or 30 players in that 22.

But we don't have 20 under contract, we have 18. We have 19 under our "control". And it is disingenous to say that we have 19 under our control because you're painting a picture of continuity when you and I both know that Bruce Smith and Dalton, at very least, are also gone. That's 17 of 22 --- and the bloodletting will be worse than that.

Moore is under contract as well and he's been the starter here until his injury kept him out at center.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! We'll put Moore in at center instead of Friedman in the bet. Out of the frying pan, into the fire, my friend: the Skins aren't gonna keep a backup center making $1.3m a year.

Holsey has been a starter here due to injury to Noble and Haley

Huh? You're arguing that Noble, who's never taken a snap as a Redskin, is the starter? Who's starting at DB, Deion Sanders? Holsey and Dalton are the starters. I think Noble is turning into your next Rod Jones -- remember your favorite player who never took a snap as a Redskin?

So the bottom line is that you intend to keep negotiating the terms of this bet until I'm betting that we have 100% turnover of starters and Ramsey is promoted to GM, right?

Chicken, chicken, chicken. Put you money (or at least your avatar) where you mouth is, Mrs Cerrato. You say that we'll have continuity of starters -- only a "handful" of changes. So take the bet! Quit talking and do something, Art.

[Redskins4Life]

Actually, Bailey is not UFA .... he's RFA which makes it possible for us to franchise him.