All is quiet--for now

there are other corners out in free agency besides clements, we will bring at least 1 in, whether its him, samuel, harper (too old IMO), macklin (solid 3rd corner, local guy), or we trade for one. there are severan RFA's as well. i have a feeling it could be samuel

I doubt Smoot will come back. Is he going to be cut? I think he is still under contract with the Vikes. He just left 2 years ago.


LOL...Roderick Hood can suck an egg and Smoot probably doesnt want to come back. Like Malcolm said, I heard he's heading out the door also. I would much rather have Clements that Samuels. Samuels is a lot of flash and this and that but, he has some strong positions backing him up too. Clements is solid, a little older than I would like, but solid. And thats what we need. We need a #2 CB that can catch when the ball hits him in the damn hands, unlike Mr. Rogers, who should get moved into the #3 CB spot with that.

Schneed10: You sound pretty educated in your analysis and you seem to be spot on. I hope to GOD you're right!

Don't the Rams have $20M+ in cap room?The Rams spent a first rounder on Tye Hill last year.

Wouldn't stop them from spending on Clements, but it's the kind of deterrent that could make them not chase him if we give him a lucrative contract offer.

Not sure yet whether that will be a good or bad thing.

Further down the blog was a little something to further stimulate interest:

AKH's Bold Predictions: Washington deals #6 pick to Baltimore for Dawan Landry, the rights to Dan Cody, and the Ravens 1st & 3rd rounders. Will sign Nate Clements, Mike Rucker (if he's cut) and London Fletcher, and the rest of the NFL will have the Federation of American Scientist to examine how they were able to squeeze those three and Dockery into 6-7 million of cap space in 07. Interesting how that concept could have been consumated as far fetched as it sounds.

I would rather see them sign another #2 corner and a MLB than Clements.

First of all, Clements comes from a loser. Second, he is looking for the big check. As the Redskins have proven, the year after the payday is usually a disappointment.

Plus, if they don't find a way for the front 7 to get pressure, they could sign Champ and Clements and it wouldn't matter.

I would rather trade the pick than spend it on a defensive tackle. We have much more pressing needs at other positions (DE,CB, LB). I don't know why people are expecting to get huge sack numbers from the interior of the defensive line. It's a rare thing in the NFL. In addition DT is the only position on the team at which we actually saw promising play from not one but two rookies. Anyone who thinks the interior of the line is the problem wasn't watching the same team I was last year. Unfortunately if this article is to be believed that apparently includes Greg Williams.Well, the truth is I have no idea if the tackles were more at fault then the ends, but IMO its moot. There wasn't a strong point of the defensive line in 2006. Both the ends and the tackles need upgrading.

I think the D Tackle situation is much more easily fixed. We take Branch. Crisis averted. We then have a guy who can grow into Saleve'a's role (completely off topic, but how in the f gramatically can you show possession of a noun to Joe Saleve'a? Can you put in two apostrophes?) since 2007 is the last year of Joe's contract. It's not like the rookie, no matter who it is, is going to be a quick fix. DT is a great position to make the pick at, IMO.

End of course is also a possibility but I think it's important to give Carter one more season to show how he fits into our scheme. If he doesn't we may very well draft a pure pass rusher in 2008 (1st round). If he does, we can try to find value in a run anchorer in the 3rd or so. But I think the wait and see approach is the best way to go with the end position.

No matter what we do, this D Line is going to be an imperfect unit next season. It why I want the pick there as rookie players in the back 7 tend not to play for Grilliams in year one. Some light FA help can improve the defensive back seven for us, maybe even to the point were we can hide the obvious holes in the D Line.

Here's hoping.

I would rather see them sign another #2 corner and a MLB than Clements.

First of all, Clements comes from a loser. Second, he is looking for the big check. As the Redskins have proven, the year after the payday is usually a disappointment.

Plus, if they don't find a way for the front 7 to get pressure, they could sign Champ and Clements and it wouldn't matter.Well, as for a No. 2 corner, we already did that last year. Kenny Wright was the No. 2 on a damn good 2005 Jacksonville defense. Apparently with the crappy state of the D Line, we are going to need someone better.

But you're right, theres no guarentees that that signing would immediately improve our pass D. The problem is on the DL and there are no quick fixes there.

Not sure how coming from a loser is relavent to anything. We have 53+ guys who are coming from a loser.

Well, as for a No. 2 corner, we already did that last year. Kenny Wright was the No. 2 on a damn good 2005 Jacksonville defense. Apparently with the crappy state of the D Line, we are going to need someone better.

But you're right, theres no guarentees that that signing would immediately improve our pass D. The problem is on the DL and there are no quick fixes there.

Not sure how coming from a loser is relavent to anything. We have 53+ guys who are coming from a loser.

If they are going to pay Springs 6 or 7 milion, he is the number one corner on opening day. It makes no sense to dump 12+ million in guaranteed money on a cornerback when you need an interior lineman, possibly a D-end and arguably 2 linebackers.

When is the last time that Buffalo was relevant? Breaking the bank on Clements is no different than hoarding 49ers. If I had to choose between Clements or Samuel, I would take Samuel. He has been on a winning defense and I have never seen Manning afraid to throw to one side of the field like the championship game. Either way the team is cheating itself if you sign either one of them.

You build a good defense from the inside out, not the outside in.

If they are going to pay Springs 6 or 7 milion, he is the number one corner on opening day. It makes no sense to dump 12+ million in guaranteed money on a cornerback when you need an interior lineman, possibly a D-end and arguably 2 linebackers.

When is the last time that Buffalo was relevant? Breaking the bank on Clements is no different than hoarding 49ers. If I had to choose between Clements or Samuel, I would take Samuel. He has been on a winning defense and I have never seen Manning afraid to throw to one side of the field like the championship game. Either way the team is cheating itself if you sign either one of them.

You build a good defense from the inside out, not the outside in.Well, if you think that we can rely on Springs to stay healthy for 16 games AND keep his level of play where it was in 2005, then we don't really need corner help at all. The only reason I would want the Skins to add a corner is because we have to prepare for life without Springs. This year that could be temporary, but in future years it could be permanent. There's no problem with moving Springs to the nickle, IMO. I just don't think its reasonable to rely on him for a 16 game season and to expect him to be the same guy he was two years ago at his age.

CB isn't a huge need compared to the DL, but if we are serious about winning THIS year, it's an issue that we can fix without picks. DL is going to take some time to fix, so its pointless to burn our cap room there. We do need a MLB also. I like London Fletcher.

It wouldn't have mattered if Clements played for the Patriots and Asante Samuel was a Bill. Not significant in any way. We are talking about guys to add to the Redskins. If they both played for the 49ers, neither would be any different as a player or potential Redskin (we may view them differently, but thats what player evaluation SHOULD eliminate). I actually think Samuel is a tad better based on observation, but GW likes the bigger physical corners and thats what Clements brings to the table.

I agree with the inside out philosophy, but I think building from the front to the back is more important. And since it's going to take time to build that front through the draft, having a dominant secondary is the only way this D will stay competitive.