What's Not Being Said About Backup QBs

[shamaran]

Not much has been said about Dano's big freeagent mistake. Yes, we all have talked at length about the DEON snafu. . .

We haven't said too much about Dano's love for Jeff George. And, that love is the big reason a quality backup was not signed and won't be signed until we know George can't play.

Although Dano has been out of the spotlight, seemingly invisable, he's VERY MUCH there.

He was adament that DEON not be cut. Money, ego, etc., bottom line, Marty's hands were tied, until DEON blinked. It was a high-stakes game of chicken.

It's the same story with George. Marty has been told by Dano not to bring in any QB that would shake the delicate mindset of George. Dilfer wanted assurance that he could compete. Gus also would have caused a QB controversy, not because he wouldn't accept a backup role, but because the fans would root for him as soon as George hit the wall.

This is the main reason a journeyman, like Kannel, a QB that won't make waves, will be signed, now with Husak's tummy strain and a gimp arm on the bigheaded George.

Dano may be out of the limelight, but he's not far behind the curtain. Believe it or not.

[bulldog]

perhaps you and I are the only posters here that see in the Deion feud that continued until the very day before camp started, a miscalculation on the part of the Redskins that is already costing the team.

We are now trying to play catchup at QB, RB and DL to make up for all the inactivity between June 1 and July 29.

That is difficult to do with camp opening and all but a few players signed and on board elsewhere in the NFL.

You can't honestly tell me that KiJana Carter, Dorian Boose and Michael Bankston were the best guys off the shelf at their positions available to the Redskins in the offseason.

What they were were the best players available as of July 29, after the "flea market of free agency" had been picked over by every other team.

The word on Bankston is that he never recovered his quickness after knee surgery in 1999 and that last year he was very limited in what he could do on the field. That was why he was released by Cincinnati.

Bankston had several good years in Arizona and it was because of that memory that I was initially pleased that he had been added to the team.

But I had lost "contact" on him since 1998 and I didn't know about Bankston's knee problems. It WAS something the Skins should have known about.

Or perhaps they did, and were just desperate enough to make a move in any event?

[markrc99]

i believe it as you say,shamaran..a while ago navydave spanked me hard with some retirement rule(obviously,i'm back for more)stating deion had to wait a yr before returning..but i sense that if everyone involved is in agreement and there is no objection,he will return some time this fall..hail the skins

[NavyDave]

Bankston and Boose IMHO are camp fodder until some better Ends are released.

It's not like they have a big contract or a signing bonus

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

Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe

[bulldog]

so our best backup ends are going to be players that rate no higher than #5 or #6 on other teams around the NFL, eh?

oh, joy.

[MarkPSkins]

keyword=backups

Last year we had alledgedly quality backup DEs in Kenard Lang and ND Kalu who never saw the playing field at those spots. We could have Warren Sapp, Jevon Kearse and Maddona as backups on the DL and it wouldn't matter if they never saw the field.

Who in the NFL would be in good shape if their Starting DLmen were out for any significant time?

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

As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional.

[Henry]

Bulldog, the thing that amuses me is that Sunday afternoon Marty Schottenheimer is another Joe Gibbs and Sunday night he's so shortsighted he's making moves every other GM in the NFL would have avoided. If marty's decisions were SO terrible, why are you bringing it up now? Where was all this fire and brimstone three days ago? Has ONE bad preseason performance so changed your mind that you are now ready to tar and feather the Redskin front office?If they had thumped the Chiefs 30-0 would you be expecting a fourth ring this year? Doesn't that strike you as a bit reactionary?

Maybe the Redskins as a whole had a bad game. Not just Jansen, Samuels, Darrell Green, and Stephen Davis. Maybe the WHOLE team played below their ability. Maybe Bankston isn't that horrible really. Maybe Monds is, in fact, competant. Maybe, for whatever reason, they ALL played like crap in a preseason game. Starters, backups, everyone. Isn't it worth waiting at least one more week before deciding which pickups were busts?

I can't believe I've become a Marty apologist after one week. I don't even like the guy that much. I never wanted him here in the first place, but even I'm willing to wait past the first week of the preseason before passing judgement.

This is getting ridiculous.

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

"Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded."

[KMP]

First things first. The only reason Dan Snyder is so enamoured with J. George is because Sonny Jurgensen told Snyder to pick George up. Sonny was the one whispering in Snyder's ear last year and Snyder listened.

No one at thins point could say when George was signed that he'd develop a torn rotator cuff during this training camp. And yes that's what tendonitis is, a torn rotator cuff. George will wait to have surgery during the off season.

And I don't believe Schottenheimer has relinquished any control of the team to Snyder as suggested. When I met Schottenheimer at the Kemper Open I asked him who controls player personel decisions and Schottenheimer glared at me saying he did. I didn't doubt him then and I don't doubt him now.

I realize Schottenheimer isn't God but let's cut the man some slack. A little training camp misfortune and a lopsided meaningless preseason loss is not the end of the season. The Redskins will rebound. Better to get the doughnut on the scoreboard out of you now than during the regular season.

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

<IMG SRC="http://www.joegibbsracing.com/joe_gibbs/joegibbs_images/driver_prof_joe.jpg" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.joegibbsracing.com/current_season/jgr_wc_18/jgr_wc_18_images/car/bobby_car_race.gif" border=0><IMG SRC="http://www.joegibbsracing.com/current_season/jgr_wc_20/jgr_wc_20_images/car/drive_pontiac_tony.gif" border=0>

[shamaran]

I certainly never wanted to imply that Marty was God?

And, I wouldn't expect him to devulge his plans to you, whom I assume he never met before the Kemper Open. Nor would I excpect him to say, "Dan owns the team, we all know where the checks come from" or some similar smart-*** answer. He was being polite, I suspect.

Regardless of if you believe that Marty was told that George was his starting QB (for this year), it was a fact of life when he signed on.

I hava had the opp. to talk to Coach Joe about this too. Not only did Joe tell me the same, but he also said, "don't expect George to stay more than this season." I don't.

[Art]

Bulldog, who would you have signed on the defensive line from June 1 to July 29 that we missed out on? At quarterback, who would you have signed that was available during that time frame? You can't say Dilfer, because he didn't sign until August, so, we could have signed him regardless of keeping Deion. You can't say Beurelin (spelling) because he signed before June 1. You can't say Frerotte, because we simply didn't want him, and despite the fact we should have, we didn't, so Deion's money is irrelevant.

Carter is at least as good a pickup at running back as we could have hoped for, and if you don't think so, who else was there that was signed during the June 1 to July 29 time frame that had you in a lather? Deion's money wasn't used because there was legitimately no one there we needed or wanted and even when we had the money, we didn't go after the players you suggest we should have, signalling it didn't matter whether we had free cash or not.

George is our QB. Next year he's slated to earn $6 million. I suspect you won't see him here next year unless he's great and takes a pay cut. But, for the time he's here, he's our man. We'll go where he takes us and not a step further. If he goes down, it won't matter who we have backing him up. We're toast.

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

Doom is in the box.

[bulldog]

but that's just the point, perception is everything.

We had some dollars available in March but used those funds to get companion players like Lockett, Greer, Rasby, etc...

We had the opportunity in the draft to try and acquire a higher rate inside lineman either by moving up within the draft or by trading a pick from next year and adding to our rather meager table of 5 picks this year. Some teams had 11 or 12 choices.

Then we had money available again on June 2 if we had cut Deion.

Now, WHO and in WHAT ORDER I would have gone about signing the backup qb and defensive linemen you are asking about is as you say moot because I wasn't making the selections.

I would have signed Frerotte for $900K to be the backup here in 2001 at age 29 and coming off a year where he was over .500 as a starter. That to me is the performance of a quality backup player. The fact he didn't beat Baltimore by himself in the playoffs to me is irrelevant. The Broncos lost control of both sides of the line in that game and few qb's would have overcome that to beat the Ravens.

As far the defensive line goes, you are correct that were few "plug them in and make them a star" tackles or ends. But if we are talking about backups and the lack of even decent quality #3 and #4 players in the NFL, then I would have considered giving Cedric Jones, Tyoka Jackson, Jim Flanigan and Chidi Ahanatou at least a workout to see if they had some ability to contribute.

Now I have to give Marty some credit for bringing in Paul Grasmanis, a solid run stopper, in early from the Eagles. Unfortunately, Reid matched the offer we gave him as they held an option in his original contract.

But as I said we spent money, almost $2 million to acquire Ben Coleman and Robert Jones. I like Jones. I think he can play and even be a starter here if given the chance. Coleman is a big guy with talent who always seems to fizzle and underperform except in 1999 when he had a fine year in Jacksonville.

Would I have made those calls? Based on the qb, rb and dl holes perhaps not. Mitchell looks serviceable for 2001. With Barber and Arrington outside, I probably would have gambled here with the number of linebackers still unemployed that if Mitchell got hurt in preseason we could sign another player or move LaVar inside and have Mason play outside.

I also would have gambled with the youth at OT that by signing Campbell and having him start with Moore inside that another player like Bruce Armstrong or Erik Williams could be had for the $500K salary and could fill in at backup tackle for one season.

Why make this decision? Because I view 38 year old Smith and 32 year old Coleman as more likely to miss time than Samuels and Jansen. I also think Armstrong and Williams are still better backup players at their ages than what we have been able to come up with on the defensive line in Dorian Boose and Michael Bankston.

And that is my concluding point. The other decisions that were made or NOT made led us down the path where Dorian Boose and Bankston were the only players left at DL when we released Deion. Is that really good value?

Marty told us all along that the younger linemen were coming along "fine" and we could pass on the players that were becoming available. Posters here noted Derrick Ham's increas in size from 257 to 270, Cowsette's being up to 285 and DeLoach being 315 and supposedly a year stronger and better.

And all that sounded good. Until you get to see them on the field and realize that these players can't match up. Yes, Ham was faced with Jon Tait but if Smith or Coleman goes down we at least need to have a backup that can hold up in the run game. Ham couldn't apply ANY pressure from DE or stop the run. Together, he, Boose and Bankston formed the kind of matador defense that Ron Lynn was famous for.

And then you go back to the old saying that what you put in is what you get out:

What did we put in? Ham (undrafted free agent), DeLoach (undrafted free agent), Cowsette (#6 pick reclaimed off waivers), Monds (#6 pick), Stevenson (undrafted free agent).

And that is about what we are getting out. Marginal players and no one that looks to be even a future contributor for this team down the road.

For one year to hold us over until the 2002 draft, Jim Flanigan, Tyoka Jackson and Chidi Ahanatou are really THAT poor of options along the DL?

Tell me it ain't so.

[The Dark Horse]

"Although Dano has been out of the spotlight, seemingly invisable, he's VERY MUCH there. He was adament that DEON not be cut. Money, ego, etc., bottom line, Marty's hands were tied, until DEON blinked. It was a high-stakes game of chicken. It's the same story with George. Marty has been told by Dano not to bring in any QB that would shake the delicate mindset of George."

How exactly is that you know the Deion thing was Dan's idea and not Marty's? Also, how do you know that Dan Snyder told Marty not to bring in any veteran QB's? Are you you just assuming these things or are they actually documented in the media? This is the first I've heard about either of these things and I am all about my daily Redskins reading.

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

<IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash2-sm.gif" border=0>

[MarkPSkins]

I agree Dark Horse, this is pure speculation by Shamaran. Based on nothing concrete. George was already here and there was really no viable upgrades to make since Shott signed on. I think, and YES it's speculation and opinion, that the Danny is doing a complete 180 from last year. He is not interfering at all, he watches, bites his tongue when he wants to intervene and just nods and smiles. Danny is going to play it this way the whole year. He tried the hands on approach, now he's trying the "I just sign the checks approach." However is if this method proves unsuccessful, what Danny will do next year is anyone's guess.

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

As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional.

[bulldog]

I don't think that Dan is that hands-off. What he has agreed to do is let Marty make the final call on player decisions.

He lobbied hard for Santana Moss in the draft and was quite disappointed when Marty selected Gardner instead.

Likewise he was upset when Larry Centers was cut by the team. He and Marty discussed that one at length.

I have no doubt that with the failure of Deion in Washington and the release of Carrier as well that Dan is sensitive to ensuring that his one remaining high-profile free agent from last year Jeff George doesn't blow up in his face.

Whether that would lead him to try and persuade Marty not to bring in a backup is questionable. I think that is probably near the line of where Dan knows he is not well-versed enough to make that kind of decision.

Personally, I think Marty developed a repoire with George and by not bringing in a veteran backup while Jeff was learning the offense cut down on the distractions and increased Jeff's loyalty to Marty.

So, in the main this was Marty's decision. Anything affecting the team that much in terms of on-field performance he would be stupid to let someone else make from the owner's box because HE not Snyder will be held responsible for it.

From my perspective there was some merit in what Marty was trying to do to buoy George's confidence and comfortability with the new staff.

The problem is, as Marty indicated at other spots, when you don't provide adequate competition there usually ends up being a large void on your team at those positions if there are any injuries.

And since only Brett Favre it appears among qb's makes it though the grueling 16 game schedules on a regular basis, it was not realistic to think you could go all the way through with no one else of note at the qb position.

[shamaran]

Simply put, some of my opinions are reported, some are not.

If you had the time or inclination, you'd find items like Dano's insistence on getting back some money and DEON's rights from that huge mistake of signing him in the first place. They were in a opinion format -- not news. You could also find articles that reflect my opinion on not signing a QB that might upset George's delicate ego. Marty was quoted as saying so. Look it up if you care to.

Having been a former reporter, and having been at every camp (excluding last year's three-ring circus) since 1971, I do have some insights that aren't in print too. I don't write sports any longer, although I do still have my pass and reporter friends. I also still have friends at The Park, albeit few, since Dano has cleaned house. You're correct if you assume I don't like the little general owner. I do, however, still love the Redskins and hope to outlive Dano's ownership.

Frankly, I've noticed that anything not positive coming from folks like King, Z, Tom Knott, Wilbon, etc., are as welcome as mud here.

When I first came here, I did think that this forum had a level of safistication that could view opinions objectively, however, I see few excluding Bulldog that feel this way. So, I'll only post "good news" or rosy opinion in the future (if at all). Sorry to be such a downer!

[bulldog]

Well, ole buddy, all I can say is hope springs eternal in 31 cities around the NFL at this time of year. I guess I should have omitted Dallas from this list since only 20,000 showed up for their opener

However, to me there are certain facts of life that go with winning in each respective major sport.

In football you need more than anything else stability at quarterback and a defensive line that pressures the opppostion's quarterback. Do you need more than that? Yes, but I don't know of too many teams that did not have those things as a start.

Some people dismiss that and like Norv think that by having a good set of linebackers that is going to secure the line of scrimmage and the ability of the front seven to stop the run. It won't.

I have been following the Redskins since 1972 and the Lakers in the NBA since 1976.

I also post to some NBA boards but a lot of them now are full of Laker-haters that are posting garbage about the team being lucky and that Kobe is going to get hurt, etc...

When talking about the NBA I am often involved in running battles with disconsolate fans of teams like the Jazz and Blazers that are really angry that they can't get beyond LA or the Spurs in the West.

I keep going back to the fundamentals of the game. Basketball is a game of bringing the ball up the court and shooting it. Therefore if you have a player in the backcourt that can bring the ball up and control the flow of the game and you have a center that can score shooting 55-60% from the field and rebounding his own misses, then you have a potential championship contender.

But as with our Redskins discussions you can't tell certain people that.

These same Jazz and Blazer fans can't accept that they don't have strong enough inside play or an athletic enough backcourt to win the Championship.

They point to a Karl Malone or a Rasheed Wallace and say that those players are every bit as good AT THEIR positions as Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, Mutombo, etc. are at theirs.

After awhile you just have to let people have their own rosy scenarios and rationalizations.

Nothing is more frustrating than seeing a team that is hyped to be good or very good fall flat on its face in crunch time.

[Henry]

Shamaran, Again I apologize for jumping on you in the other thread. It was the end of a long day.

It's not that we don't want to hear anything negative. Personally I think I'm nore critical of Marty than most on here.

What irks me, and I think the others here, is that all the criticism appears the day after one bad preseason showing. I read the board for info, not cheerleading. Sorry, but saying you knew all along that Husak was erratic AFTER he plays that way for all to see is not particularly helpful. Bulldog himself was one of the posters who would was extremely critical of negative press, and I generally agreed with his feeling that the media had a double standard for us and most of the front-runners. But now he has become the Redskins' biggest critic ... after one bad game.

I still enjoy Bulldog's posts and I'm not trying to pick on him, or you really, but most of us just aren't going to pull a complete 180 just because the team came out flat in the first preseason game. Perhaps you have been posting doom and gloom from day one, but I sure haven't seen it (and believe me I read these boards EVERY day) and for you to turn around and start bashing away now just looks like a knee-jerk reaction to a bad game. Maybe that's not the case, but if it is don't expect a warm response from the rest of us. Lamenting a bad preseason game doesn't make you appear any more objective than the rest of us.

If the Chiefs fan who visited here (nice guy BTW) came back on Monday and started crowing about how great the Chiefs were and what a genius Vermiel was and what a great player, say, Todd Collins was ... he'd be laughed off the board.

Same thing.

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

"Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded."

[Art]

Bulldog, let me just say in an overview, that had we done things in a different order than you thought necessary, today we'd be complaining that we made no moves at corner (we didn't know Smoot would fall to us did we?), wide receiver (same for Gardner), offensive guard, special teams and tight end. We had holes to fill and we've gone about doing so. To your post now, more specifically.

You wrote:

"We had some dollars available in March but used those funds to get companion players like Lockett, Greer, Rasby, etc..."

Yes, and again, had we not, and had the draft fallen out differently, we'd be absent quality at other positions than these.

"We had the opportunity in the draft to try and acquire a higher rate inside lineman either by moving up within the draft or by trading a pick from next year and adding to our rather meager table of 5 picks this year. Some teams had 11 or 12 choices."

We didn't have 11 or 12 choices. We had five. And, we didn't move up and limit our choices for next season allowing you to complain next year that we only had five picks and where are they going. With the picks we had, we got the players we probably needed most at least in the first two rounds. I may have picked Hutch at guard rather than Gardner, but, you can't quibble with the potential filling of one hole at the expense of another, else you'd be here today, as we'd have a highly rated defensive lineman, bemoaning our lack of strength at receiver. You can't have it both ways. Was Gardner a bad pick? If not, your point is moot, and it was not a bad pick.

"Then we had money available again on June 2 if we had cut Deion."

And again, you keep dodging the question of who you would have signed. Start naming players available from June 2 to July 29 that we needed that we missed out on. Who got snapped up because we were holding onto Deion? Prove your point brother, don't just say words. Again, I've already shown you Deion didn't impact our signing of Dilfer, because Dilfer didn't sign until after we had money available. Who did we miss out on Bulldog? Your argument sounds good, but it lacks meat to be valid. Prove it or lose it.

"Now, WHO and in WHAT ORDER I would have gone about signing the backup qb and defensive linemen you are asking about is as you say moot because I wasn't making the selections."

You weren't making the selections, but you are PRESENTLY critical of those who were. And, I'm asking you to apply your plan in how we should have attacked the free agency period. What backup qb should we have signed and then tell me the player we couldn't have signed that we did that you'd give up. And do the same for defensive linemen.

"I would have signed Frerotte for $900K to be the backup here in 2001 at age 29 and coming off a year where he was over .500 as a starter."

I find this interesting. I am a Gus guy. I like him and think we should have shown interest in him. But, for a fact, in February, you were writing that Gus and George was a wonderful combination for an 8-8 season. You weren't glowing on Gus in February. So, while I agree with you now that we probably should have given him a better look, I'm not sure either of us can fairly indicate we were in a lather about him in March.

"That to me is the performance of a quality backup player. The fact he didn't beat Baltimore by himself in the playoffs to me is irrelevant. The Broncos lost control of both sides of the line in that game and few qb's would have overcome that to beat the Ravens."

I don't disagree with you Bulldog. I like Gus. I'd have liked to have had him. Though, again, even this in July you were writing that Husak had more potential than guys like Weinke and he had more polish to his game. Not too many of us hated Husak very long ago. On August 7 you were cautioning that it wasn't time to panic yet about our QB situation. And, you said it ideally and perfectly when you wrote in another post, "So, if the Redskins CAN get a quarterback by trade or free agency who can help us win ACTIVELY then I am all for it if Jeff is hurt and can't play. But if the choice is going with a retread who won't beat Philly or the Bucs anyway, then why not go with the younger players and see what happens? To me, the real gamble was already made in getting to this point. Now, it is just a matter of playing the hand you dealt yourself."

Just so. But, I'll grant you you've always been open to the return of Frerotte. Now, with the revisionist history in mind, in signing Frerotte, who would you have not brought in that we did. Let's see how it compares.

"As far the defensive line goes, you are correct that were few "plug them in and make them a star" tackles or ends. But if we are talking about backups and the lack of even decent quality #3 and #4 players in the NFL, then I would have considered giving Cedric Jones, Tyoka Jackson, Jim Flanigan and Chidi Ahanatou at least a workout to see if they had some ability to contribute."

Let's just go over this. Ahanatou is still available is he not? Isn't it fair to assume if we wanted Ahanatou, we'd have him in since he's still out there? And, why isn't Bankston at least comparable in your mind? These guys are approximately the same size. In the last three full years both have played (in that Chidi was hurt three years ago so I won't count that) Bankston is credited with 190 tackles while Chidi is credited with 128. Bankston is consistenly a better run stopper than Chidi and the stats EVERY YEAR bear that out. So, let's put Chidi in the dumper where he belongs. Not that it wouldn't be a solid addition, but, really, I'd rather have Mamula for the potential pass rush ability than another Bankston-type run stopper who can't rush the passer. Only, Chidi is not as good as Bankston at stopping the run.

Jones is an ok player with some youth and upside, that's certain. But, he's not a world beater, and he signed in May, not June. So, if you were for him, who weren't you for? Robert Jones maybe? Ben Coleman? We can build your way, but then don't we have questions elsewhere? I'll assume you are joking about Jackson and I believe Flanigan is far too small to have been an option inside for us, since we already have questions there, I don't know if we needed to answer one with another.

"Now I have to give Marty some credit for bringing in Paul Grasmanis, a solid run stopper, in early from the Eagles. Unfortunately, Reid matched the offer we gave him as they held an option in his original contract."

It was a shame.

"But as I said we spent money, almost $2 million to acquire Ben Coleman and Robert Jones. I like Jones. I think he can play and even be a starter here if given the chance. Coleman is a big guy with talent who always seems to fizzle and underperform except in 1999 when he had a fine year in Jacksonville."

Coleman has been a solid, durable professional who fit not only a GAPING need at the guard spot, but also could play tackle when required. You may think he's underperformed and that may be fair, but, he's performed consistently for several seasons as a starter, and played at a far higher level over time than Cedric Jones. I assure you, I'd take Coleman over C. Jones in a heartbeat. I'm surprised you would even consider it otherwise.

"Would I have made those calls? Based on the qb, rb and dl holes perhaps not. Mitchell looks serviceable for 2001."

I like Mitchell and think he looked as good as any player on Sunday, but, we are only now thinking he looks serviceable. He certainly has NEVER done ANYTHING to lead ANYONE to think he could start at middle linebacker for a competent defense. Perhaps he can, but, Robert Jones brings excellent quality to the backup outside backer spot and the ability to assure Mitchell can do just that. And Jones has accomplished more as a professional than all of the defensive linemen you've listed. Now you mention running back, so, tell me who you like there that we missed on?

"With Barber and Arrington outside, I probably would have gambled here with the number of linebackers still unemployed that if Mitchell got hurt in preseason we could sign another player or move LaVar inside and have Mason play outside."

I won't get into how much I dislike this concept.

"I also would have gambled with the youth at OT that by signing Campbell and having him start with Moore inside that another player like Bruce Armstrong or Erik Williams could be had for the $500K salary and could fill in at backup tackle for one season."

Great. I think Coleman is a better player than Armstrong is at this point, and he is more versatile than Williams. I'd rather have him than either in a straight conversation or even at a lesser amount for the others. And I'd certainly rather have him than Bruce Armstrong and Tyoka Jackson. By a LONG stretch.

"Why make this decision? Because I view 38 year old Smith and 32 year old Coleman as more likely to miss time than Samuels and Jansen."

Hey, so do I. But, in the market, there were few players at defensive end to really make a run at. I'd have liked to have seen us make a run at Simeon Rice. Other than that, we were pretty much shut out based upon the fact that there's little there to pick from. And that's been the case the entire offseason.

"I also think Armstrong and Williams are still better backup players at their ages than what we have been able to come up with on the defensive line in Dorian Boose and Michael Bankston."

I agree, signing both Armstrong and Williams would have been better than signing Boose and Bankston. No question about it. But, signing Coleman and Jones is better than signing Armstong and Williams, so, we could have not signed Coleman and Jones, we could have signed Armstrong and Williams and we could have ended up with WHAT again? Jackson and Ahanatou? Are you kidding?

"And that is my concluding point. The other decisions that were made or NOT made led us down the path where Dorian Boose and Bankston were the only players left at DL when we released Deion. Is that really good value?"

That's untrue. Chidi is available and you feel he'd be a good selection. To be honest, the best name you've mentioned is Flanigan, who at least is a worker who seems to get all he can out of his ability. And he was signed in May. In hindsight, perhaps it could have worked out that we had made a push for a guy like Flanigan, who as I've mentioned, I'm not crazy about, and gotten him to go with Ahanatou, Bankston, Williams and Armstrong rather than signing Jones, Coleman, Campbell, Lockett, Bates, or whoever. But, every guy you subtract to add another kind of evens out the equation.

I think we've done an admirable job filling the spots we needed to fill and we are continuing to do so. I don't believe it's fair to look at what presently is available and say, "See, we could have gone a different path." If we all had the ability to know Williams would be available, and Armstrong, then perhaps we could have redesigned our attack in free agency to overpay for marginal defensive lineman. I'm not sure we'd be happy even then.

"Marty told us all along that the younger linemen were coming along "fine" and we could pass on the players that were becoming available. Posters here noted Derrick Ham's increas in size from 257 to 270, Cowsette's being up to 285 and DeLoach being 315 and supposedly a year stronger and better.

And all that sounded good. Until you get to see them on the field and realize that these players can't match up. Yes, Ham was faced with Jon Tait but if Smith or Coleman goes down we at least need to have a backup that can hold up in the run game. Ham couldn't apply ANY pressure from DE or stop the run. Together, he, Boose and Bankston formed the kind of matador defense that Ron Lynn was famous for."

I realize we should have young pro bowlers in every position backing up our older pro bowlers. I've just missed where you've shown me a bunch of solid players we've missed out on. That's the crux. What you say sounds good until you realize the facts of the matter and then what you say seems to lack the same bite. Sure, I'd love a great backup at defensive end and a better starter at tackle. I'd love it. Wouldn't we all. I'm also not sure I'm willing to write off the entire roster because you are upset at the first preseason game. But, call me crazy.

"And then you go back to the old saying that what you put in is what you get out:

What did we put in? Ham (undrafted free agent), DeLoach (undrafted free agent), Cowsette (#6 pick reclaimed off waivers), Monds (#6 pick), Stevenson (undrafted free agent).

And that is about what we are getting out. Marginal players and no one that looks to be even a future contributor for this team down the road."

Fair enough that we haven't invested much in the draft to fill these spots. However, when you sign Wilkinson and the NFL Player of the Year on defense, in Stubby, you kind of think that spot will be filled for a few years and perhaps you can draft a young linebacker like Arrington and a young left tackle like Samuels instead. But, I take your point that we should have KNOWN Stubby sucked and that Wilkinson would never be a Pro Bowl player, and then we could have selected players OTHER than Arrington and Samuels. But, of course, then you'd be asking what we've put into the linebacker spot and left tackle spot, wouldn't you?

"For one year to hold us over until the 2002 draft, Jim Flanigan, Tyoka Jackson and Chidi Ahanatou are really THAT poor of options along the DL?"

Well, Jackson is a complete dog. So, yes, he'd be that poor an option. And, again, he signed in May. Ahanatou is still out there, and we still have cash for him. Give him a call. He's not proven as good as Bankston, but, let's not sweat that. Flanigan signed and he would have been a satisfactory guy to get. And we could have gotten him. Granted. But, again, I'd rather have the guys I do have than Flanigan. I just wish there was more out there to make your point more impressive. Because it's not a bad point, other than it isn't as simple as you'd like to make it.

"Tell me it ain't so."

I think I just did.

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

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Shamaran,

How about you show us the articles quoting Marty saying he didn't want to bring in a quarterback that might fluster George's comfort level. I read a whole lot, and might suggest I read more than most, and I assure you, the quote you would have us look up has never been seen. But, how about you show us this quote so I can apologize for missing it.

As for your speculation on Dan running the show on Deion, I don't know that I disagree. It's something I've said as well, that as much as this is Marty's team, I assure you Dan is in the background on the Deion thing saying, "There's no way we are cutting him loose until we get something in return." I think that's totally plausible and likely correct.

Any level of insight you have is welcome, whether positive or negative. I am sorry you don't like Danny's leadership. Personally, I love it, and often find it humorous to listen to those who don't, as they usually don't because of having the atmosphere they are accustomed to so roughly eradicated. What you see from Dr. Z and Tom Knott and others, are generally less informational pieces that convey bits of bad news, but, ignorant person bashing and envy spawned from no longer being treated as they've long been.

I don't have any issues personally with good journalistic reporting, be it positive or negative. I also don't have issues with people holding opinions that are less than flattering. I do tend to dislike those folks who hold those opinions based simply on the fact that Danny is younger, richer and more arrogant than they are. Too often that's the negative reporting we see. And in every case we see it, it's laughable.

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

Doom is in the box.

[MarkPSkins]

Sham and Bulldog, it is not that I or other posters refuse to see the negative side of the coin, we do. However, to contrive a season long assumption based on one lousy PRE-SEASON game irks me. How can you tell? What are you basing this on? The whole team was flat, not just our "scrub" backups. To condemn any upside in our backups because of this one game is futile, what if they play well this week, will you give them any credit? What if Husak just had an off day? What if our interior OL is just figuring some stuff out? Our star "bookeend" looked like crap too, should we replace them with available FAs?

All I am saying is to give these guys a chance. Deion or not, there wasn't much else out there to pick-up. Because some of the other alternatives were sitting waiting to be picked up by some team tells me that they weren't that great in the first place. I don't claim to be very knowledgable about second and third tier players, and quite honestly don't care to be, but to say were are in trouble because our second and 3rd tier players didn't stack up in one meaningless game is no reason to totally write them off.

The Redskins first tier players are good enough to be competetive in the NFL. Maybe our depth is not, but saying they are not because of the KC game is jumping the gun. If we have to depend on our depth, like any NFL team from Tampa to St. Louis, we are in trouble, with that I agree, and a stop-gap player here and there would make little difference. We are what we are. In my opinion we are a decent, potentially very good team with the first line players, beyond that, we are not very good. Period.

In regard to Jeff George being Danny's lust, other than an opinion from a sports writer here and there LAST YEAR claiming to hear those whispers and hoping to create a controversy in DC, I have not seen any real evidence of that. The theory about them not signing a starting quality backup to avoid any distraction to George is valid and one I tend to agree with. It ruined Brad Johnson last year, why make that same mistake twice.

I am a realist, I know that this year rides on the play of George, Bruce, Marco, unproven WRs, Stephen Davis, improved interior OL and DL play. If these guys get hurt we will stuggle, I know this, I understand this and I accept this. But I refuse to make any assumptions without seeing what THOSE guys can do.

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

As always, my opinions do not reflect the opinions of management and are based on ficticious opinions. Similarities to any opinion living or dead is completely unintentional.

[The Dark Horse]

Shamaram has a good point about people being chastised here when they post something negative about the team. It's happened to me several times since I've been here.

Also, no offense but your post did read more as facts instead of opinion. Hence, my confusion and question.

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

<IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash2-sm.gif" border=0>

[bulldog]

let's get down to the brass bolts here

I favored the drafting of Gardner and Smoot. In fact if most of you will remember I was perhaps the PRIMARY poster favoring the selection of Gardner OVER Koren Robinson and Santana Moss back when that was unpopular on this board.

But, I also realize the Redskins don't win games in 2001 without a quarterback who can execute the offense and a defensive line that can both rush and defend the run.

Art can take me to task for suggesting we should have drafted other players at the top of the draft (I didn't) and also for listing some defensive players I thought could help the team more than the assemblage of undrafted free agents, waiver pickups and low draft picks we are now attempting to make do with.

My main argument with Art's post is that just because the Redskins declined to make a draft day trade for Flanigan or sign Trent Dilfer or Gus Frerotte in free agency doesn't mean my opinion that those players could help this team is mistaken.

It just means that MARTY decided these players could not help the team or not at the given price. But that is a subjective judgment we will have to see pan out over the course of the NFL season.

On another related point, I don't think there is any way you could compare where Boose and Bankston are NOW with where Flanigan and Ahanatou are. Boose rarely got off the bench in his 3 years in NY and the Jets declined to keep him despite the fact Ferguson and Abraham are coming off surgeries from the offseason. Just a little curious wouldn't you say? Maybe you know more than I do but Boose looked like a statue on the field in KC, stiff in the lower body and a player often caught in space groping to make arm tackles.

Bankston is also an interesting story. Yes, he has had some solid years in the NFL with Arizona. He can play DE as well as DT. But did you know that Bankston has had 5 knee operations? Did you know that last year at age 31 he looked as if he had slowed down some and lost quickness? Maybe that more than the general incompetence of the Bengals front office (which can be gargantuan at times :evil was responsible for his release?

Once again, Marty is in untested waters. He is now drafting, trading and also developing players. This is a new role for him and we will see how he does with it.

The signings of Carter, Boose and Bankston a day or two before/after the opening of camp to me was an indication of the desperate situation here.

When your #1 option at running back is admittedly out of football shape, not having played in over a year and your two pickups on the defensive line are a perceived "bust" and a 10 year vet with knee problems, it bears close watching and a lot of praying.

[bulldog]

the above post's last paragraph should read "when your #1 backup option at RB"..........

I don't want anybody slyly coming along and reminding me that Stephen Davis is still on the team

[Om]

Well, since I wrote this, a slew of r-e-a-l-l-y l-o-n-g posts have appeared, so maybe it will get lost in the shuffle ... but I'm gonna post it anyway. What's one more voice amidst the mid-week clamor?

Shamaran:

Frankly, I've noticed that anything not positive coming from folks like King, Z, Tom Knott, Wilbon, etc., are as welcome as mud here.

When I first came here, I did think that this forum had a level of safistication that could view opinions objectively, however, I see few excluding Bulldog that feel this way. So, I'll only post "good news" or rosy opinion in the future (if at all). Sorry to be such a downer!

I don't think that's fair. This board is as inclusive and open-minded as any I've seen. What some posters here, including me, DO tend to object to are flat-out statements presented as fact, about things which, without supporting data, are really no more than opinion.

I don't remember who said exactly what, but for example only, off the top of my head, I'm referring to statements like "Todd Husak cannot play in the league." Or that "the Sunday game against KC ‘proved' " anything insofar as the D line's competence (or anything else, for that matter). Agree or disagree, those are valid opinions ... but without empirical evidence they are still just that. Opinions.

Heck, I don't even know what I would consider empirical evidence on something like Husak's potential to develop as a viable NFL QB. I wouldn't necessarily buy those kind of statements from Ron Butler or Joe Gibbs, much less an anonymous post on a message board. Even the acknowledged "experts" who live the NFL every day screw the pooch from time to time, and are dead flat wrong about a player or a perceived strength or weakness of a unit.

Forgive me, but to me at least those kind of statements come off as a bit arrogant given the forum. Everyone has an opinion, and they're all worthy of equal consideration. But when a poster's words appear on the screen under a nom de guerre, they look very much like anyone else's. The poster's background or access to information other's may not have access to just isn't readily apparent.

Because we come here to exchange ideas and opinions, it seems to me that unless we're prepared to start comparing resume's, or access to inside information, we should be prepared to have our opinions questioned. You've now told us you have some inside access, and that's nice to know. I for one hope to hear more ... and to the extent you can, it would be nice to whose learned opinions we're getting.

But when someone states what at least sounds like opinion, but presents it as fact, I don't believe they should take offense when someone calls them on it. Please don't mistake someone's questioning the content of your opinions for suggesting you should not post them. We're debating issues, not each other.

That's fair, isn't it?

[ by Om on August 15, 2001.]

[Art]

Again, Bulldog, Bankston had 64 tackles last year as compared to Chidi's 47. It was written in the Tampa newspapers that Chidi was let go because he appeared to have hit a wall and have lost a step since his major injury. Bankston may have had five knee surgeries. He's also started 102 games of the 112 his teams have played in. How serious are these knee injuries exactly?

I don't doubt Bankston is slowing down. I don't doubt Chidi is. I do doubt Chidi would be more beneficial than Bankston given that Chidi has NEVER been as strong against the run, and has proven to be FAR less durable and dramatically less active against the run, though, certainly marginally better rushing the passer, though, certainly not so since his injury three years ago.

Making a value judgement on Bankston versus Chidi it is verifiable and unquestioned that Bankston has performed at a higher level for a longer time against the run and has proven more durable. It's very hard to say Chidi is a better player unless one is wishing upon a star. But, that's enough on that.

I think Boose is simply camp fodder and nothing more, so I'm not sure why we are discussing him. We didn't pick him up when we had two healthy players in Smith and Coleman, and solely picked him up after they were dinged and couldn't play and we needed a body. He's not really here to hold down the fort I don't think.

I do think your statement's on Dilfer, Frerotte and Flanigan are misplaced. Dilfer was available and we simply didn't want him at any cost. That's clear. Frerotte is much the same after he lobbyied the team to take him. We didn't want him. And like yourself, many Redskin fans were EAGER to see Husak given the opportunity. Like yourself, many Redskin fans were very high on the potential we thought Husak might have.

Like yourself, many Redskin fans have now come to think we are at critical mass with our quarterbacking situation since Husak played like sh!t on Sunday. We may well be, and it may now appear that we should have given more weight to our need at quarterback than we did, but when we were doing what we did to improve the team, we were all generally very happy with the idea of giving Husak a chance. We can't now go back and say, "Bad move." It wasn't a bad move when we did it and it may be that it won't work out as we'd wish it would, but, it was a competent move made on a presumption that we could probably survive with Husak there.

We can't now give Frerotte and Dilfer more weight because it appears Husak may not be an answer for us. Hindsight reveals where mistakes were made, but it doesn't change the process. We did the right thing when we were planning for this year and we may have miscalculated on Husak. I'm not willing to say that yet, but, it's possible.

You wrote how down you were with our defensive line. You wrote the draft position or free agency pickups of many of these guys as a demonstration on how we haven't devoted the type of devotion to fixing a weakness that we should have. My argument with you in these recent threads is that you were very outspoken in favor of a great majority of what we've done this offseason, and now, after one preseason game, the world has come to an end, and there's nothing but questions.

There are questions, Bulldog, but, you've gone too far to the extreme to be fair. You keep questioning the moves to support our running back position with Carter, suggesting we should have done something else, but not saying what. You keep throwing Dilfer out as an example of a QB we should have signed, initially with the word that we didn't sign him because we kept Deion, making it a double mistake, and I pointed out that was not true or fair, and in fact, we didn't get Dilfer because we didn't want Dilfer. You weren't banging on Marty the last four months about this mistake. Now suddenly you are?

You have now finally brought out Flanigan's name as ONE moderately competent selection to have considered along the defensive line. Shortly after our draft you wrote in support of Marty not trading for Flanigan on draft day that the Bears wanted a fourth or fifth round pick for him, but Marty wouldn't give up a mid-level draft pick for a guy who had a camp number that assured his release. You wrote this the day he was released. So, you don't REALLY think we should have traded for him on draft day.

Perhaps you really mean we should have signed him thereafter. But, you have never mentioned that until after Sunday's game. NavyDave mentioned Flanigan's name repeatedly as specifically a guy we should sign. You never did. You have always strongly supported the signing of some defensive tackle, a position we both agree with, and indeed, Flanigan is one defensive tackle to consider and perhaps we whiffed on that.

Point taken.

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

Doom is in the box.