Gonzalez

[The Dark Horse]

Something tells me that Marty has had Tony on his mind since he got here. The way things are going in KC, looks like Tony doesn't want to stay. I'm guessing they slap the tag on him but if not, I would not be suprised to see him in the Burgandy and Gold next season.

[Guest The Angry Buddha]

I believe it was Art that said the Skins were clearing cap space to make a run at Randy Moss. Perhaps he actually is planning to get the league's best TE instead.

The Skins won't be able to find a better receiver via the draft or free agency than Gonzalez. And in this offense (well, in the WCO with someone other than Raye running it), his presence would be a bigger boost to the running game than any WR could bring. Teams would be forced to keep a linebacker and safety on him at all times rather than stack 8 men in the box and let their DBs play man-to-man against wideouts.

You'd expect that KC would slap the franchise tag on him, but I wonder if they are still in cap he11 and would take themselves out of the free agency game if they did so. Even if they do tag him, I think at this point I'd send our 1st and a 3rd for Gonzalez at most. A small price to pay for a future Hall of Famer in his prime.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://home.earthlink.net/~wahoofamily/flag.gif" border=0>

[VoR]

KC will definitely use the franchise tag Gonzales since there's so much interest in him. Some teams will fork out the 2 #1 picks to get him.

My bet is that Gonzales will probably end up with the Raiders or 49ers.

[indyskinsfan]

I agree and disagree. Gonzalez IS being considered for the infamous franchise tag, however, the cap room that KC WANTS to have, means, they will have to or consider letting him go reluctantly. Even if they get #1's or whatever, you always want to keep the biggest box office draw, moneywise on the team. He makes such good adjustments in any offense.

Also the 49ers are envisioning the old Montana, Clark, Rice, Taylor, combo and that would be the missing link. I wouldn't be surprised if Westbrook is also invited to make it the most lethal passing game, compared only to St. Louis.

Westbrook knows, Garcia will get him the ball when he seperates from the defender.

Gonzalez may not take the Raiders, as much as he would the 49ers. Also the Raiders may turn to running more than they pass, after this year, since Rice and Brown are figured to have father time claim them.

[redman]

bulldog, I have to disagree about Westbrook being a hot commodity in general. Sure, someone will take a chance on him, but not for his exceptional receiving skills. He's always run poor routes, and that spells death for a west coast offense looking for a featured WR. Perhaps he could be a successful #2 in SF opposite Owens, but I see him as more of an Alvin Harper (with the Cowboys) type of WR than Irvin or Keyshawn, etc. He's always been overrated, and I say that as a Redskins fan who generally likes him and who wants him back next year (for the right price).

As for Gonzo, for the umpteenth time forget him. He's awesome to be sure, but we're not a TE away from success as a team. We need a QB, DE, DT, SS, OG, and to (re-)sign) depth at other places like LB, RB, WR and OT before we start throwing dollars at TE like Gonzo is going to command.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[Brave]

redman is right. Gonzalez is tempting to be sure, but we have more pressing needs for that kind of money. Also, if I'm not mistaken someone will have to THROW the ball to him, right?

Who's that going to be?

[Art]

For the record, I speculated back in July, given that it was clear the team was making a concerted effort to clear cap space, that the team was clearing room to make a major run at a big star. At the time, I speculated that star was likely to be Randy Moss. Tony Gonzalez certainly also fits into that category of a major star the team might be making a run at.

I also don't really know that KC will be franchising him though, given Vermeil wants St. Louis' offense and that means receivers of his own, and not tight ends really. Still, if we are going to spend the cash, it's probably going to be on a Brunell or a Bledsoe I'd think.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Dirk Diggler]

I agree that if we acquire a star on the offensive side of the ball, it should be a QB. I don't see us being able to pull off both, AND be able to acqiure 2 starting caliber d-lineman.

I believe though that there is no way Gonzalez gets out of KC scott free. ALthough He doesn't mean much to Vermeil, the rest of the league knows what Gonzalez brings to the table and KC will at the very least put the transition tag on him. Maybe even franchise him since I believe tight end is the cheapest franchise tag for a non-kicker.

Vermeil needs to build up that d-line and the receiving corps and the best way to do that is through the draft. And the last time i checked, you need picks to build through the draft and there is no better way to get picks than unloading a superstar.

[TennesseeCarl]

I'm by no means a fan of Stephen Alexander, but there are those who feel he's got serious talent. Personally, I prefer watching Flemister develop.

Why Tony Gonzales would come to Washington for anything other than a cap-busting deal is a mystery to me. He'd end up with 47 receptions.

I agree with the posters who suggest that our greater needs lie elsewhere. Like behind the center....or the center..or next to the center.

[NavyDave]

WEsty is either going to the Broncs or for the big money in Houston and it wouldnt be surprising if CC opens up the wallet for Gonzales too.

They have a defensive minded coach and CC will probably make sure the offense wont look too marty like so it can compliment the defense

------------------

Take A Sip of the Marty KoolAid and Believe.

[Dirk Diggler]

I always thought CC never liked Westy. From what i heard, he prefered Joey Galloway in the draft and got nixed by Turner who selected Westy.

[@DCGoldPants]

looks like both where wrong since Galloway and Westy have both been hurt AND not carried their teams...Galloway was good back in 97 I think.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://tenaciousd.com/images/nuke2.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I44993-2001Sep05" border=0>

[GURU]

It seems that the Skins were snakebit during that era's first two drafts. Both Casserly and Turner were wrong to focus on one position because neither player each preferred turned out to be a superstar, or even a vital cog.

Turner preferred Heath Shuler. We know how that one turned out. Casserly preferred Trent Dilfer. Dilfer hasn't been a total bust, as the Super Bowl ring on his finger would tesify. But he's certainly never fulfilled the promise he showed coming out of college. Even if the Skins had drafted Dilfer, I'm not sure they would have spent anymore time trying to develop him than Tampa did.

Westbrook continues to confound and frustrate. Injuries and atttitude have been his ball and chain. Injuries he couldn't help. But he's never really developed love, or even a true interest in football. I think it's just a job to him. At this point in his career, I don't think he'll ever live up to his potential. He could still be a decent second receiver, but never a go-to guy.

Galloway is sort of the same story. He's had more success than Westbrook, but he's still basically a complementary receiver. He's a receiver with breathtaking speed who really stretches the field. But he's never been a go-to guy when you need a big first down.

I guess Casserly was a little more right, but not much.

Alas.

As to the original question, I don't think this team is one superstar away from being a really good team. The cap space could be more wisely spent.

[ by GURU on December 27, 2001.]

[bulldog]

the worst thing this team can do is go out and make a large financial investment in a player on offense BEFORE settling on a quarterback.

yes, Gonzalez is an elite player. But a tight end is not going to change the fortunes of your team that much unless there are similar upgrades elsewhere.

Quarterbacks, corners, pass rushing defensive ends....these guys can come in and make an immediate impact on their own because they are not dependent on anyone else getting them the ball or setting up plays for them. They can create their own opportunities.

Wide receivers, backs and tight ends need other pieces to be in place to be successful.

A solid quarterback, offensive line and an OC that knows how to scheme with the available talent to get the most of it.

We don't have all those things, or even most of them in place yet.

Raye is a question mark as OC. Or rather Raye and Marty, whoever is really calling the shots.

The qb situation is a mess right now. The line has 3 free agents to resign or make a decision on very soon after the season is over.

The wide receiver situation is in flux with Westbrook likely moving on. That leaves us with a rookie and a career #3 right now as the starters.

I don't know if I am that comfortable with a lineup of Lockett and Gardner at this point. Lockett doesn't give Gardner a better matchup on the other side because Kevin doesn't have the deep speed to stretch the defense.

The Redskins need a wide receiver with experience in the WCO and hopefully a guy that has some speed as well in the same package.

That player can then tutor Gardner to hone his skills and we can continue to develop McCants, Skaggs and Thompson to take over the #3 role when one is ready.

I would let the Gonzalez "dream" go for now. The temptation is to make a couple of large moves to jump start the team after being 6-8 this season.

But the prudent GM in me says stay the course and continue to improve through the draft and mid-tier free agency.

That way you spread out your risks and don't end up with a player making big bucks who gets hurt and then screws your cap for the next 2-3 years.

[The Dark Horse]

I haven't really rang in on this but I think that a QB can be had for some draft picks that don't need to be of the first round variety. Jeff Blake intrigues me. He could be had for probably a third and fifth and I think he can do the job.

After listening to the arguements, I am still undecided whether or not signing Gonzalez would be a smart move. The one thing I can say about Tony is that if you plan a heavy dose of Tony, he is one of those handful of players that can completely dominate his opposition at the professional level. I also like the possibilities of how he would fit into our play action game plan. His presence alone could heavily discourage teams from stacking 8 to 9 in the box against the run anymore. However, people are correct that he will be very pricey and a very good arguement can be made that you should never commit that much money at some positions, with tight end being one of those.

Glad it's not my decision to make. I'm also glad that KC will probably tag him and end all these pipdreams anyways.

[bulldog]

People underestimate Blake. He was 6-1 as the starter in NO last year when he got hurt and was on course to make the pro bowl.

This year Haslett admitted that the competition between Blake and Brooks was extremely close and in the end came down to going with the younger player because of his upside.

At 32 I think Blake has some good years left in him. I agree he could probably be had for a decent price.

Blake is another guy who started out in the NFL throwing the deep ball, but has developed a pretty good all around game.

For those who think Blake hasn't had a stellar career just remember he was playing for a Cincinnati club whose talent level was probably below most teams in the SEC during those early years.

No running game or offensive line and Blake just running around for his life like Archie Manning used to do in New Orleans in the 1970's.

[Zen-like Todd]

All I'm gonna say...

I very badly want to see a Redskins QB with a 90+ rating at some point in the next couple of years.

[bulldog]

Go back and look at how Blake played last season and you will see a quarterback with all the skills necessary to be successful. In fact he WAS very successful as his starting record indicated.

The rapid development of a 24 year old talent in Brooks is the only thing keeping Blake off the field.

I don't know what his career rating is, it probably isn't all that high considering his start in Cincinnati, but like Gannon is a player with a nice combination of athletic skills who has seemingly put it together after 30.

[Cskin]

The more I think about it, the more Blake seems to make sense. He made alot of plays up there in Cincy, and that was with some pretty marginal talent. His offensive line was atrocious, and he had no running game for the opposing defense to account for.

Also, and I might be thrown to the wolves here, but I'm not opposed to seeing Chris Chandler in B & G. Yes...yes... I've heard all the comments about him being fragile. But let's remember that he took ATL to the Super Bowl in 98, and since then has lost his running game early in both seasons and has a horrid offensive line. Since they lost Toebeck at center, there OL interior has been like open flood gates. Heck, even Vick has had trouble escaping the onslaught that is the opposing team's blitz.

With a solid O line and a pro bowl running game, he could pick defenses apart with his accurate arm and read progressions. He's only problem is staying healthy behind that line. Think about it, we're only looking for a stop gap until Sage develops or we find a gem some where else.

[redman]

Tony Banks pre-2001 career stats

Jeff Blake pre-2001 career stats

Jeff Blake is a better QB - so far - than is Banks. But it's better by degree, as they are the same type of QB in general. Blake too is a strong-armed QB with above average mobility. He's not known for accuracy, or even necessarily for tough gritty play or leadership.

While Blake's better in virtually every category - completion %, ypa, TD/INT ratio, overall yards and TD's, The only strikingly different statistic is the TD/INT ratio. As bulldog pointed out, he's developed into a pretty decent QB, and proved that in NO last year.

However, I'm fundamentally in doubt as to whether he's the right QB for our WCO system. A QB who can manage only a completion % in the mid-50's is not the best fit for us, as we've seen with Banks. Brunnell and even Bledsoe would appear to be better for us. Again, Blake would represent an improvement, but that's not saying much with Banks as a comparison.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[bulldog]

well, what you have to remember is he was playing in a system in Cincinnati that accented the deep ball both because the team had Carl Pickens and Darnay Scott at WR but also because the team was often trying to come from behind late in games.

That type of offensive attack rarely produces a passer with a 60% completion ratio.

I don't know that going out and getting a quarterback like Brad Johnson that completes 65% of his passes, but 80% of those are for under 10 yards, is a real upgrade over Banks.

Seems as if Tampa has had as many problems as the Skins putting up points against good defenses.

Remember their 27-3 loss to the Bears two weeks ago?

Right now we don't have ANY of the players needed to run a WCO system. Gardner has not been tutored in that system. It doesn't suit Westbrook if he remains. We don't have a 50+ catch fullback candidate for sure right now. We don't have a reliable tight end.

So, in order to make a true WCO go here in Washington, we need to pick up more bodies than just an accurate quarterback.

The personnel here is weighted heavily towards a power running game and a downfield 'stike' offense.

To change that at this point may be like trying to reinvent the wheel.

[GURU]

Even if you have Gonzales, defenses are STILL going to stack 8 or 9 guys in the box until your quarterback makes them pay for it. Gonzales can't throw passes to himself.

I'm in agreement with redman about Blake. He would be an improvement over Banks, but I'm not sure he's best suited for a West Coast-type offense. We might be getting too mired in that whole WCO debate again. I don't buy the argument that we don't have anybody suited to it, though.

Gardner has been tutored ONLY in the WCO, at least on the NFL level. I agree that Westbrook and the WCO is a bad pair. You need discipline in your routes, which Westy has never had. Frankly, I still think Westbrook starts based on talent and the occasional big play. Sure hasn't been based on production. Lockett, on the other hand, could be an ideal running mate to Gardner in this offense. He won't scare you with downfield speed, but he runs the right routes and gets open. He probably has the best hands on the team, too. I could see Gardner and Lockett potentially becoming a duo like Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell. Their physical attributes and skills seem to match up. They've been an extremely effective pair, in case you haven't noticed. Of course, they've had Mark Brunell throwing the ball.

I actually like what I've seen from Flemmister. Good hands, good running skills. I wish they ran more plays for him.

I think Brian Johnson could be a very effective fullback out of the backfield. Not enough plays run for him, either.

Stephen Davis sure as hell ain't the second coming of Roger Craig. He's going to drop some. But again, they don't run enough screens or swing passes on first and second downs to Davis.

The problem is that this team doesn't run even close to the gammut of WCO plays. But it's the chicken/egg thing. Is it bad coaching, or simply a lack of confidence in the ability of the QB to execute or even remember the plays?

[ by GURU on December 27, 2001.]

[Darth Tater]

If we did implement a true modified WCO, we'd probably want to run an offense like Denver.