Absolutely Stunned.

[Tahoe Skin]

Originally Posted by SkinsRock

SC- Some very good points, but I have one question: Just how good did the Eagles do with Thrash as their lead pony? Oh yeah, the NFC runner-ups! I know, he most definitely was not the sole reason they got there, but it shows it can be done (success without a true #1 WR)....and I'm sure many Skins fans would love the Redskins to be in that position.

Let's not worry too much about who we have as a receiver. We have plenty of speed, talent and athleticism at that position. Once we benched Brunell and Ramsey got going, I think the real problem was our inability to give Patrick time to throw.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Tahoe Skin

Let's not worry too much about who we have as a receiver. We have plenty of speed, talent and athleticism at that position. Once we benched Brunell and Ramsey got going, I think the real problem was our inability to give Patrick time to throw.

Very true.

The line and Ramsey's inexperience in the system and in general played a big part in the lack of an effective passing game. Hopefully both of those areas will improve this year along with a more aggressive downfield attack from Gibbs.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by SkinsRock

SC- Some very good points, but I have one question: Just how good did the Eagles do with Thrash as their lead pony? Oh yeah, the NFC runner-ups! I know, he most definitely was not the sole reason they got there, but it shows it can be done (success without a true #1 WR)....and I'm sure many Skins fans would love the Redskins to be in that position.

they have mcnabb though to make up for it.

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by That Guy

they have mcnabb though to make up for it.

True, but the Eagles didn't have a Clinton Portis, either. They had the three-headed monster of Staley, Westbrook and Buckhalter-- but none of those guys inspired defenses to put 8 men in the box with any regularity. Staley and Buckhalter had one or two good rushing games a year, and Westbrook has been more or less a wide receiver out of the backfield. It's not like the Eagles were loaded on offense prior to acquiring Terrell Owens last season. Pre-T.O., McNabb was the only player on that offense that really made defensive coordinators wake up in cold sweats.

The Skins may not have Coles and Gardner, but look at how splendid this offense was with those two players as the top wideouts. People have been crying for the Skins to get rid of Gardner for years-- with good reason, and Coles is certainly not the weapon he used to be. The fact is, this offense couldn't get much worse than it was last season. Patten, while unheralded, is a reliable receiver who will actually catch passes that hit him in the hands, and Moss, while not the tough-guy that Coles was, will provide the deep threat that Coles can no longer claim to be. This offense, believe it or not, tried to go deep last season. The reason there weren't many long completions is that the receivers struggled to get open deep, and the quarterbacks were forced to go to their shorter options.

With Moss and Patten, that may change. With Coles and Gardner, I doubt it would have improved.

[SkinsRock]

The past 5 off-seasons:

2000: Bought a bunch of big names and "won the off-season", which turned a 10-6 playoff team into an 8-8 team with an interim coach.
2001: New coach and FO structure got rid of or lost a lot of players. Started out horrible at 0-5 and almost had a mutiny, but turned it around to end up 8-8.
2002: Another new coaching staff and back to the old FO structure, made a couple splashes on D, but went for "cheap and available" players on O, and slipped to 7-9.
2003: Same HC, but lost a top DC, Went after talented, younger players, but overpaid to get some of them...still made a big splash. Slipped to 5-11.
2004: New HOF coach and very experienced staff. Went after a couple big name players and a few up-and-comers, lost a pro bowl CB. HC seemed to take a while to get back in the swing of things, but the D ruled under another top DC. Went 6-10.

So the best seasons compared to the previous were the Marty year and last year....and considering that Marty's team arguably had a lot less talent than the 2000 team, so I'd say that was the best improvement. So I'm VERY curious to see the 2005 team without making a big splash in FA for the first time since 2001.
Yeah it hurt losing Pierce and Smoot, but as someone else said, EVERY team loses good players. That's the nature of how it is set up. To me Smoot leaving hurts a little more, not necessarily for his play, but he just seemed like a true Redskin....put it like this: If Lavar is the "face" of the Redskins (player-wise...overall it has to be Gibbs), Smoot was most definitely the "voice".

[BossHog]

I believe some people emphasize players more than the team on a whole. Can you possibly think Greg Williams' system will not survive without Smoot?

[itvnetop]

at first, i was as shocked as everyone about how our core guys were leaving, but after reading gibbs' reasoning in today's post article, i'd have to say i agree with him...

they didn't want to pay our RFAs more than guys who were playing similar positions at equal or better levels of performance. I know the market each year calls for higher salaries, but it's only a year removed from paying out Marcus Washington and Shawn Springs... in the cases of Pierce and Smoot, they didn't necessarily outperform Washington and Springs last year. if the FO pays the RFAs more just a year later than signing Marcus and Shawn, what message does that send to them?

I'd understand if Springs was in the last year of a 5 year contract and Smoot demanded a substantial amount more than him (market inflation)... but it's only been one year and Springs and Washington performed at least equally to Smoot and Pierce. I actually like this precedent, if the Skins are going this way.

[Tahoe Skin]

I understand your point, but I would still have spent the extra $800,000 to keep Smoot and chalked it up to inflation. I think Walt Harris played very well when he spelled Smoot, but still Smoot is quite a talent.

[John Hasbrouck]

I hated to see Pierce go over a small amount of money.Synder should have paid. Smoots put himself above the team. We will be fine without him.My concern is the QB.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Yeah, money is DEFINITELY doing some talking this offseason. I've said it once and I'll say it again, Gibbs is setting a precedent for how he's going to handle signings in the offseason (with the exception of the Coles scenario.)