Remaining Holes............

[bulldog]

So, after the signing of Jones and Coleman what do we have left to address before or during camp?<br /><br />1. A veteran backup defensive lineman. We don't have a legitimate #3 end if you believe Marty that Lang will be the starter inside at tackle. Derrick Ham and Terry Bryant appear to be the top candidates at end right now, and that prospect has me holding my breath that Smith and Coleman don't get a hangnail during the season.<br /><br />2. Backup running back. Bennett can run inside and is good near the goal line as well, but the Skins with Davis and Bennett need a speed back to show a change of pace, especially on third downs late in games where we need to send a back out in the slot as a receiver.<br /><br />3. Backup quarterback. This one is interesting. Marty said at first you could only judge a quarterback when you have seen him in game action and seemed to indicate he was going to sign a veteran regardless of Todd Husak's facility in the WCO. Now, he seems to have backed off that position, at least in regards to signing Trent Dilfer. If Husak has an outstanding camp and shows well in the preseason does Marty sign a veteran anyway that might be released, even though that player will not really have adequate time to learn the system?<br /><br />And what about Rosenfels? A #4 pick is pretty high for a player that appears to be strictly an afterthought on a team rebounding from 8-8. He may be a scout's favorite here with the Redskins on draft day, but I really don't see Rosenfels with his poor fundamentals challenging Husak for the #2 spot this year or for a starter's job down the line.<br /><br />Are we looking at another Tom Flick in Rosenfels? Remember Flick was a #4 pick out of Washington in the Gibbs era.<br /> <br /> [ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Die Hard ]

[shamaran]

Sage was simply someone Marty said he really liked since working the kid out a month before the draft. And, by using the 4th pick, Sage served to give Husak a clear message (boot in the behind) too. That's about it; he will be one of those mysterious trip over the out-of-bounds line injuries and go to IR or practice squad this season.

I think a lot of good players were sitting at the fourth pick, particularly LBs, but Marty's the man doing the picking. Who knows, maybe Sage will be more than a Tom Flick cup o' coffee player, perhaps not.

I think another pass rushing type DE is in order. Perhaps Mamula will change his mind about retirement after the two-a-days summer camp draws near the end and his wife is bugging him with honey-dos? I think Mamula has a lot left in his tank, if he wants to use it, and will take an incentive-type contract.

QB? I think still, someone, a journeyman-type, will be signed before the season, regardless of Husak's preseason performance. Perhaps a guy like John Friesz? He's probably the best, cheap QB that will be available?

And, with Alexander scaring the hell out of everyone in yesterday's practice attend., a pass-catching TE wouldn't be bad either. Zeron Flemister still looks pretty unsure to me.

[Ignatius J.]

I think we have bigger worries than QB. I know we just signed a LB, but we're still alittle thin there right? Last time i counted we had five under contract, is that enough?

As for rosenfels, he's the third string QB, no one's paying him much attention and he just isn't doing anything to grab attention. We will be in trouble if he hits the feild, but that is true of almost any team out there. Marty likes him and i think its clear that a vet takes Rosenfel's roster spot, not Husak's.

-DB

[Guest W&M]

I consider everything reported in the newspaper today (especially that Alexander is okay) to be excellent news ... both now, and for our future.

It appears our young safeties are showing a lot of promise. Anytime a plethora of young players show enough promise to impress and "old school" coach ... I figure things must be good for their future. I really think that is awesome news. And more than likely, one of the those guys (one of the two big hitters) will be groomed for Shade's replacement. But in the meantime, we should also revel in the fact that those guys are promising special team players. Plus, by not having to sign a veteran FS, we have even less need to cut Deion early ... yeah, put the screws to him.

And once again, I'm very, very happy to hear about Coleman. He's very good, and more than capable of starting at tackle for the next 2-3 years ... so he's an awesome back-up. But I'll bet he'll be a bit expensive ...relative to our other FA signings.

I'm curious to see how Hanspard pans out. He's young and used to be ultra talented. If he's recovered, he could be a better 3rd down option then Greg Hill ... plus he's like 6 years younger.

Finally, I really like the moxy Marty is showing, in his willingness to go with a promising young player over a grizzled veteran. To me, this shows that Marty has some confidence in his coaching ability. And it also tells me that we are going to see a lot more development out of our younger players ... because they will actually play!!!

Not to mention the benefits this will have for our cap future.

[Guest W&M]

Oh yeah. Bulldog, I think you are correct that we might end up seeing Marty sign a veteran back-up QB (and it won't be Dilfer). But I don't think that will necessarily be a bad reflection on Husak. Husak may well be the future, but I"m sure Marty want's one full year to evaluate him before he's comfortable making him the primary back-up ... especially when Marty must believe there is a fair chance he'll butt heads with George this year.

As for Rosenfelds, so long as he doesn't look impressive in pre-season games, I think he can safely be stashed on the practice squad. No one will steal him from our practice squad, because to do so, they have to put him on their ACTIVE ROSTER. And a 3rd string QB who knows nothing about the offensive system (after missing the entire camp) would be worthless to a team. We can stash him for a year.

[Art]

I agree that we are still a touch thin at linebacker. Of course, if healthy, Barber and Arrington will never leave the field, so we might not be so thin. Jones can fill in at either middle or outside backer positions. I'd still like a body at this spot, but, I'm happy with the Jones addition, in that it offers quality depth, if not a top-notch starter.

We have to do something at defensive tackle such that we aren't praying on Lang coming through or hoping on a rookie with iffy work habits. I'm increasingly pleased by the additions we are seeing, in that we continue to add starter-quality depth. At the moment, our offensive line is deeper than it was last year.

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

Doom is in the box.

[Monkey]

Defensive Lineman: Marty has not gone after any, does this mean he thinks that there is no one available is better than what he has? Seems that we would really want a DT to let Lang back to DE.

Running Back: Is this a money question? There are currently a total of 7 RBs on the roster, again, might there be no one available better?

Quarterback: We signed a number four guy for reps. I suspect this indicates no real interest in another QB at this time.

Drunken Boxer-

We have 12 LBs under contract according to Buddah. One is out for the season.

[bulldog]

We will likely carry 7 linebackers. We already have Arrington, Barber, Mitchell, Mason and now Jones as veterans.

That means the last 2 or 3 (if we carry 8) roster spots are likely to go to some of the youngsters we signed that show some special teams skills and future promise.

We signed a lot of linebackers after the draft including a couple in Cornelius Anthony and Kevin Nagle that were rated as being players who were expected to be drafted.

I would expect either or those players together with Anthony Sessions and Chaz Murphy to compete for the backup spots.

I don't think Marty is going to sign another veteran linebacker.

[KMP]

In order of importance I'd say the Redskins need a defensive tackle, backup QB, interior offensive linemen and linebackers. Thankfully all we need are backups not starters. If we can get a little more depth at those positions I'll be very satisfied with this offseason.

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

<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>

[Art]

Take a run down of this team as it compares to last year's team, and compare where we are better or worse off. Pretty clearly we are worse off than a year ago at defensive line. We are better off at linebacker and secondary. Though, the secondary may even out if we drop Deion and don't add anything else.

On offense, we are worse off at quarterback and running back. We are talking about depth here, and not talent at the starting spot obviously. So, I do think it would be nice to add a fairly competent running back to bring this position back up some.

But, at wide receiver and offensive line, I think we are substantially better off than we were a year ago. We've gotten a little younger, a little bigger and a lot deeper with versatile players at offensive line. If we sign a competent backup running back, I think this team will be pretty deep and strong on offense.

Defensive line remains my sole major concern. But, there's time to rectify that, if not great talent out there to do it with.

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

Doom is in the box.

[Terry]

The problem with Marty is that what he thinks are the remaining priorities and what I think are the remaining priorities seem to be different.

We talked about the D line, and whether Lang can cut it at DT full time or even in a rotation. I'm not sanguine about Bruce playing every down next year. And as I remember, wasn't it Wilkinson we used to spell on passing downs quite a bit?

I can only feel that Marty's looked at our guys, looked at the tape, looked at the system they were in, and decided that he can put them in a position to get more out of them. And he's basically ok with who we have.

But I have a hard time accepting that. Either Monds has an impact this year, or we need a tackle so that Lang can sub anywhere on the line. And if it's Lang who will play tackle, then I think we need a speed rusher to spell Bruce or Marco.

The only caveat I have to that is the possibility of a pass rush that allows Lavar to line up as a stand up DE, ala Ken Harvey, spelling either Marco or Bruce, and with Jones moving to the strongside spot he vacates.

.

Husak at #2 is scary, but I think that injuries at QB, WR, RB, anywhere on the DL will likely doom our season anyway. So at this point I'd rather have Husak at #2, and not spend the money on a one year wonder. If he's thrown to the wolves because of an injury to George, then it happens during a rebuild season anyway, and we get to find out definitely what kind of QB we have.

.

I think we're still a little light at LB, but at this point I don't think there's much more we can do about it. We have a potential star in Lavar, a guy who could have a breakout season in Barber, and competence in the middle. The only concern is that the DT/MLB combo might not be up to par as a unit.

.

We need to find out ASAP if we have a guy on the roster who can give us 20/80 if Davis goes down for a game or three. And we need to see if Bryan Johnson is a player. I think we'll add another back before the camp is too far underway.

.

As for safety, if we can keep Shade, it should have a steadying effect on Terrell. Terrell seems to be a heady player who made a favorable impression last year and was one of the few guys on teams who really went after it. But I think Marty will likely grab someone before August.

[Sailor]

I can't believe Marty isn't going to do something at DT. Our run defense has been mediocre to poor and I don't see that we improved it by substituting Mitchell for Smith and Lang for Stubby. Matter of fact, we are looking pretty soft up the middle. I know that's where I would attack the Skins D if I were the opponents.

As for Husak, I think it is time to make a decision on him. Either he can play or he can't. If he can play, he should be good enough to carry into the season at #2. Look at what Frerotte was able to do as a starter in his rookie year. Husak has had a whole year of carrying the clipboard. As we get into his second season, if he is not good enough to come in as a backup (meaning he is much worse than Frerotte) why are we keeping him around?

[bulldog]

Art, I agree with most of what you said, including the need for defensive line help.

but, I don't see Donnell Bennett even if he is not supplemented with another tailback, as being a poor tradeoff for Skip Hicks and Adrian Murrell from last year, who were dreadful.

Murrell had like 5.0 speed and couldn't escape DT's in the open field while Hicks produced virtually nothing all season. What were his final stats?

Bennett will play special teams and rushed for a good chunk of yardage in 1999 on a team that threw the ball a lot.

so, in my opinion that is a an upgrade. If we are able to land a competent pure tailback to backup Davis I would be more comfortable, but I feel a lot better now than I did after game 9 or 10 last year when we saw what Hicks and Murrell had to offer when Davis went out with the forearm injury.

[All In]

"I like the group that we have here," Schottenheimer said. "David is making good progress. Josh is doing a good job, and Ohalete has a far better grasp of it than anyone could have expected he would."

Looks like RB will be next. I think they'll give Hanspard a shot. He will be a inexpensive signing, and two years should be good timing for his knee to heal. Hey people thought Terry Allen was done when we got him.

[Art]

Bulldog, you don't have to see Bennett as a substantial downgrade to Hicks and Murrell. You have to see that no one has replaced Hicks and Murrell and Bennett is a downgrade as compared to Centers, since fullback is where he'll live most of the time in our offense. He 'can' play halfback, but, we'll have someone else as the primary backup to Davis.

Essentially we've added Bennett to replace Centers, Hicks and Murrell, and, no matter how you slice it, we've downgraded our capabilities at the position substantially and painfully. Bennett will do ok as our fullback, though, he's not going to produce as Centers did in the passing game. But, we are scary thin at the moment at running back. Hill, Linton, even a reach like Hanspard, would mitigate that difference, but, we can't realistically say we aren't worse off at running back than we were a year ago.

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

Doom is in the box.

[bulldog]

Art, I was focusing solely on the ability of the team to find an adequate sub for Davis if he misses a game or two along the way.

Yes, Centers was listed as a running back and caught 80 balls, but he was not a realistic option as a runner and the production we didn't get from Murrell and Hicks only amplifies the amount of empty uniforms we had on the bench last year.

Centers' production will be missed no question from the fullback position. Bennett won't catch even 40 balls.

But he is a better runner and that is the primary failing we had in games last year against Philly and New York when Davis was hobbled.

In the WCO I think Davis is going to get a lot more pass receptions and you will see Alexanders numbers shoot up as well.

You are correct we still need a pure tailback to backup Davis in case he is out for say 5 or 6 games, because Bennett does not stretch the field at all.

But in a perverse way the offense may be better off NOT depending on a back to catch 80 balls and getting the football into the hands of the TE and WR on those third and short plays to try and break some big plays with RAC, something Centers didn't display in 2000.

[NavyDave]

Bennett actually replaced both of lastyear's Fullbacks which is a significant dropoff.

I see us waiting to the last minute to sign a D Lineman and vet QB

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

Yes I'm paid to think and I need a raise

[bulldog]

Again, though? Is that a loss?

A lot of Larry Centers' catches were dumpoffs from Brad Johnson on 3rd and 20 and gained 5 or 6 yards before we punted the ball away.

while those catches are better than incompletions, few of Larry's catches went for big yardage or ended up as touchdowns from inside the 20.

I remember one year Kimble Anders had 75 or 80 catches with the Chiefs, but as with Centers, they were symptomatic of problems the Chiefs were having that year in getting Steve Bono to throw the ball downfield effectively.

In my own mind, I separate out those kinds of fullback performances in terms of catches with what say a Roger Craig or Marshall Faulk does with 90 catches.

Those types of players are dangerous coming out of the backfield because they ran in space like wide receivers and had speed and the ability to miss tackles.

If we were losing that type of productivity then I would be more concerned.

[Terry]

The stats bear that out - 80 catches for 600 yds - 7.5 yds per reception, and 3 TDs.

In other words he got the number of catches that a #1 WR gets, but with nowhere near the production that that number of touches should produce.

Here's another stat, those 80 receptions only gained 27 first downs. That was the 2nd lowest number for guys with more than 70 receptions, and way lower than most guys getting 80 or more receptions.

He was decent, but not great, at helping to move the chains. But it was at the expense of passes going to WRs and the TE, guys with better downfield ability.

He seems to become a crutch, giving the QB the easy dump off rather than forcing him to wait a fraction longer on something developing downfield.

As a comparison, Faulk had 81 catches last year. But he turned those into 830 yds (10.2 avg.), 8 TDs, 42 first downs. His longest was 72 yds and a TD.

[Henry]

Guys, this is silly talk. Getting rid of the band-aid doesn't make the cut go away.

We are weaker at RB and especially FB. Period.

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

Hail to the Redskins!

[bulldog]

That all depends on what Marty does between now and camp and what Bennett does during the season at FB.

Remember that with Centers and Sellers we were talking about a platoon that signalled to defenses what we were going to do. With Centers in the game, he was no running threat so everyone knew a pass play was coming. When Sellers was in the game, likewise, he was no running threat so the ball was going to Davis or downfield.

With Bennett, he can block at the point of attack, but he can also carry the football effectively. Not to the point of counting on him to gain 1,000 yards, but enough to average more than the paltry numbers we saw from our fullbacks last season.

The other issue which no one seems to want to address is the fact that those 80 catches by Centers were coming out of the mouthes of players at TE and WR, where a pass offense is supposed to get its real source of productivity.

Isn't it funny that once Jeff George became the quarterback James Thrash was catching 6 or 7 passes a game and Centers was not? All of a sudden we had a productive wide receiver again!

I don't know about you, but I would rather script my offense so that 6 or 7 catches a game were going to a player with 4.4 speed who is averaging 13.5 or 14.0 yards per catch down the field over a 32 year old player circling out of the backfield for 3 or 4 yard dinks well short of first down yardage.

Again, if Bennett is a capable lead blocker for Davis and can help out near the goal line as a supplement to Davis then I don't see how we are losing that much at the FB position.

I would still like to add another tailback however.

[Monkey]

"Getting rid of the band-aid doesn't make the cut go away."

good...

but the band-aid cannot stop a hemorage(kind of negative) or a band-aid may cause you to favour a cut that is healed.

[Henry]

Look, you guys are talking about coaching and personnel issues that have nothing to do with Centers' or Sellars' abilities. Yes, I'll happily concede that Norv mis-used those guys and Brad leaned on Centers too much. So?

I'd still rather have Centers, Sellars, Hicks and Murrell than Bennett and nobody no matter who the coach, QB, and WRs are. We are serious need of some depth at the position. That's the bottom line.

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

Hail to the Redskins!

[ by Henry on June 13, 2001.]

[Larry]

Terry,

Here's another stat, those 80 receptions only gained 27 first downs.

I hadn't seen that stat before, and it does seem very significant to me. (As opposed to a lot of stats). I seem to remember a comparable stat being flashed about one reciever (I think it was Thrash), where the TV guys pointed out that this year he'd had 27 catches for 23 first downs.

Knowing where that yellow line is can be a great talent.

[Terry]

Hey Larry,

I couldn't find Thrash's numbers on CNN/SI's receiving stats page. He didn't get enough catches to show up on their radar, so It's hard to say. He ended up 50/653/2/13.1

The guy who moved the chains was Connell. He had 19.5 ypc average on 39 receptions for 762 yds. But 3 TDs for all that.

And to bolster Bulldog's point about Davis catching the ball, he had 33 catches for 313 yds and a 9.5 average, his longest (catch and run) was 39 yds. That average and longest was better than Centers.

But in some ways folks here are arguing apples and oranges when we talk about Bennett replacing Centers/Sellars/Hicks or whoever.

First off, I think he's replacing Sellars primarily. In that regard we're likely to see him do better than the 1 carry for 2 yards that Sellars had. I don't think he'll match Sellars 8 catches for 78 yds and 2 TDs (although he has had more catches than that in a season), but he should more than make up for it in rushing yardage. Maybe the FB trap, draw, and dive plays will be dusted off and put to good use again.

Centers gave us a hybrid role that obviously isn't easy to replace with one player. Basically he was a receiving/pass protecting fullback. We haven't brought in Bennet (or anybody) to duplicate that receiving role. But if we took half of Center's 80 touches and gave them to the WRs and TE, then I think that we'll double the 300 yds and do much better than the 1 TD that resulted last year.

And if we gave another 30 of those receptions to Bennett and Davis, then I think we'll be OK.

And hopefully we won't be so damn predictable.