Peppers says he wants to explore free agency

[KingOFCali]

Here we go again as redskins thinking about the fools gold. Peppers was a beast about a few years ago. But after injuries he isn't worth more then the pen the check is writen with. Haven't we learned anything from Jason Taylor?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

There are so many rumors being floated around, as is customary at this point, that starting a new thread would be all over the place. I hinted at most of what I know a few posts back with my somewhat educated guess.

Happy to answer any questions

Alright, who do you think they're going after in the draft? You've been talking to the scouts. Is there anyone that the FO is rumored to be looking at with interest in the draft and FA?

[GusFrerotte]

No high priced FAs please!!!!!! Unless you guys want to root for a crappy team for the better part of this decade we need to really get smart with the draft scouting and try ti get more picks if necessary via trading someone of value.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I believe that SLB is the easiest position to handle on the entire defense, and while "strong side" would imply that you need a bigger, stronger player there, the fact that you spend a lot of time taking on blocks from the tight end instead of a tackle or guard makes me think that a smaller guy should be able to handle SLB better than WLB.

That, and I think it's somewhat easier, without having curl-flat coverage responsibilities and all.

Much appreciated breakdown but it leads to another question: why didn't Marcus and Rocky swap sides long ago being that Marcus struggles to keep up w/ most in coverage (he usually looks hurt when he sprints IMO)?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Much appreciated breakdown but it leads to another question: why didn't Marcus and Rocky swap sides long ago being that Marcus struggles to keep up w/ most in coverage (he usually looks hurt when he sprints IMO)?

Fear of the unknown maybe? Marcus has been a SLB his whole career, and if his 2004 contract is any indication, he was valued like one in the free agent market.

Our chasing of Lance Briggs in the free agent market makes it seem like we were never going to consider moving Marcus into the heavier WLB responsibility role. We drafted Rocky, in my opinion, because we had in mind the fact that he would fill the WLB role vacated by Arrington, and we just haven't at any point had someone who could handle that role since we released LA.

I think we should try Blades there, since for two years now, his numbers have been absoultely unbelievably impressive. I think he can handle that responsibility.

Of course, we then have to build the DL while keeping in mind that we have no LBs over 240 lbs, and there are bruising OLs like Carolina's who pose impossible matchup issues (see preseason, game 3).

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

My somewhat educated guess says the following:

-We're going to show some interest in Peppers and Jordan Gross but it won't be all that intense. And, much to my dismay, we're not likely to go after Karlos Dansby either.

-We're going to offer a lot of money to Albert Haynesworth mainly because he's exactly what Blache has been asking for, a dominating interior lineman. Personally, I think the concerns about Big Al's character issues are a bit overrated. The bigger concern is really durability issues, he's only played one 16 game season in seven NFL seasons.

-Blache is really hoping Daniels' knee is up for at least one more year so he can put him back at DE opposite Andre Carter and allow the team to...

-Move Jason Taylor (who I think they figure out a way to keep) to weakside linebacker.

-If Daniels can't go, maybe they go with Evans again. Either way, I know that at this point DE is not high on their list (probably some late round pick if they get some extra picks) so I expect the 2009 starters are already on the roster

-Marcus Washington is probably gone (along with Griffin especially if they are able to get Haynesworth)

-McIntosh moves to the strongside but could be benched pretty quickly if they are able to get the guy they hope might fall to them in the draft...

-Aaron Curry. If he's there at #13 (not likely) the Redskins will probably take him and hope to trade late into the first round or into the top third of the second round to take an OT (deep class) like Beatty or Loadholt

-If Curry isn't there, they'll probably take an OT there at #13 and then hope to trade late into the first round or into the top third of the second round take an OLB like Cushing or Sintim. I think Cushing might actually be the guy they most want (little worried about that) but not at #13

-If they keep their third round pick, it may be an interior OL but it's more likely to be a running back

That's all for my somewhat educated guesses for now

All this scares me because it sounds very plausible.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Alright, who do you think they're going after in the draft? You've been talking to the scouts. Is there anyone that the FO is rumored to be looking at with interest in the draft and FA?

Well to be clear, I haven't been talking with Redskins scouts (not yet at least), but I've talked to some scouts and other execs in the league who have given me their impressions (based on observations and conversations) and everyone pretty much at this point believes the Redskins want to add an OLB and an OT first and that they will probably draft RB before DL, I think the Skins like this guy Jeremiah Johnson in the 3rd round potentially.

This is going to change so many times but if the draft was today, my suspicion is they'd take Cushing at 13.

Interestingly enough, one of the scouts was talking about Vinny and Snyder and he said they have the right idea but he doesn't understand their execution. For example, he thinks it was absolutely the right idea to go after a couple of WRs last year because beyond Crabtree and Maclin he doesn't believe the class is as strong this year. But he thinks they could have done better than Kelly and Thomas. He thinks they could have afforded to wait a round or two and take another receiver deeper in the draft. For what that's worth.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Interestingly enough, one of the scouts was talking about Vinny and Snyder and he said they have the right idea but he doesn't understand their execution. For example, he thinks it was absolutely the right idea to go after a couple of WRs last year because beyond Crabtree and Maclin he doesn't believe the class is as strong this year. But he thinks they could have done better than Kelly and Thomas. He thinks they could have afforded to wait a round or two and take another receiver deeper in the draft. For what that's worth.

I agree with this scout (wow, I just wrote that?). Trading down, drafting for value, grabbing long term positions first, all good things, actual evaluation of said players: awful bordering on irresponsible.

It's clear that Vinny and co. know what they need to do to be successful. It seems like it might be more of a crapshoot for the current unit then the Gibbs-lead front office.

I'm pretty much basing this on 1) the selection of Devin Thomas, and 2) the lack of evidence to disprove this theory.

Small sample, I know, but that's what I'm getting. They do a lot of things better than the Gibbs-led front office, but tell a good prospect from a bad prospect at the same position does not appear to be one of those things.

[Trample the Elderly]

A crap shoot is a lot better than trading all of your picks for FAs. At least they're trying to draft now. If they keep making the right moves I'll find it harder and harder to bad mouth the FO. The final book hasn't been written on last years draft, just the introduction.
From what Smoot Smack has been saying, that crap that Vinny spewed about not drafting for need is hog-wash. When the coaches tell you they need this and that, you have to take that into consideration.
I'm not a DS or VC fan but I think they're starting to learn. Who knows what will happen? The next lesson for them that they should've learned a long time ago is not to go after retirement players. I'd go after some more reliable cheaper FAs then one big name. That's just me. Every time I see some big team winning a big game it's usually a no-name player that makes the difference.
I'd be happy with a 2005 repeat and blow out Dallas and Filthy with a split with Jersey. I was so happy about that.
Good Smack, Smooter. Keep us in the down low.

[A10sROCK]

Originally Posted by RedskinMike

you seem to forget we had the #4 ranked defense in the league

We could not beat anyone that had won more than 9 games. We had an 8-8 record. We have a good defense. We could have a great defense with one or two elite DL.

I know this statistic - which is based on yardage yielded. Yet, our defense got few sacks and few turnovers and points for their team.

In the NFL you've got to be able to generate turnovers and points on the defense. We could not; nor could not stop the best QB.

This justification is why this team can't improve past 8-9 wins because for a decade we've drafted WR and DB, or used our FA money to chase aged players. Our overall win-loss statistics shows the result of that philosophy regardless of the coaches.

[Dirtbag59]

Before I forget. If what Smootsmack said has the merrit that I think it has then that's seems like a direct contradiction against Vinny's front for "oh we take the best player available because when you draft for need you get in trouble." What Smoot described sounded more like a "thats our guy" mentality (especially with the infatuation as it relates to Cushing) as well as the idea that they can get this particular running back in the third round. To elaborate it sounds like they already know what they want and they're going along the path of do first, answer questions later.

Maybe I'm wrong but from where I'm sitting this is how the front office's possible "plan" looks.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by A10sROCK

We could not beat anyone that had won more than 9 games. We had an 8-8 record. We have a good defense. We could have a great defense with one or two elite DL.

I know this statistic - which is based on yardage yielded. Yet, our defense got few sacks and few turnovers and points for their team.

In the NFL you've got to be able to generate turnovers and points on the defense. We could not; nor could not stop the best QB.

This justification is why this team can't improve past 8-9 wins because for a decade we've drafted WR and DB, or used our FA money to chase aged players. Our overall win-loss statistics shows the result of that philosophy regardless of the coaches.

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Before I forget. If what Smootsmack said has the merrit that I think it has then that's seems like a direct contradiction against Vinny's front for "oh we take the best player available because when you draft for need you get in trouble." What Smoot described sounded more like a "thats our guy" mentality (especially with the infatuation as it relates to Cushing) as well as the idea that they can get this particular running back in the third round. To elaborate it sounds like they already know what they want and they're going along the path of do first, answer questions later.

Maybe I'm wrong but from where I'm sitting this is how the front office's possible "plan" looks.

It's not necessarily a contradiction. Yes they really like Cushing (from what I've heard) and they believe they need a linebacker but they won't necessarily take him if he's there if a better player (regardless of position is there) and they feel they can fill their need for a linebacker later on. It just so happens that they apparently think Cushing will be there at 13 (I don't see why he wouldn't be) and that he is not only a need but also the best player available at that point (assuming other players go as planned).

But it's so early in the process. Next week, approximately, the staff will start to really detail their wish list for free agency. Over the next couple of months as free agency shakes out, they'll get a sense of what they want to accomplish in the draft.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

I bolded this because it's a very good point, I feel. Sometimes, if poorly talented defenses can stay healthy through the whole year, 4-5 months is just enough time for the talent to bubble to the top, and problems that seemed like they would just make a one-and-done playoff teams, they tend to go away "at the right time". So, I think it's a good point that if you build the offense, the defense can come at the right time, regardless of how much you did/didn't invest in it.

But I have to disagree with the rest of your post. The difference between Arizona's offense and ours was philosophical, not necessarily inefficient. Arizona needed to score points to outpace the defense, while Washington prefered to keep the ball on the ground and speed up the game.

Was Arizona's offense better than ours? Yeah, I think I (and everyone else) would say so. But it's not a good comparision, because Arizona's offense was NOT as good as Atlanta, New York, Miami, when you consider the philosophy and the turnovers. Arizona offense, for most of the year at least, was closer to us then it was to the elite offenses. They still managed to win 9 games though.

I also can't wrap my head around the fact that an average offense would have resulted in a 10+ win season. I mean, you can rank our defense a bunch of different ways, none of them are particularly impressive to me. They are 4th in some rankings, 5th in others, and it's probably the most mediocre 4th or 5th in NFL history.

Not to say that defense wasn't the strength of the team, but it (as you mentioned) was an 8-8 team, one with poor special teams, and an offense that was hardly inept, even if all of our games were low scoring.

I would say if we had a great defense, we would have won 10-11 games by playing ball control offense and improved special teams. As it is, we were decent there, and won 8 games, which is about what I expected considering our pythag stats.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I bolded this because it's a very good point, I feel. Sometimes, if poorly talented defenses can stay healthy through the whole year, 4-5 months is just enough time for the talent to bubble to the top, and problems that seemed like they would just make a one-and-done playoff teams, they tend to go away "at the right time". So, I think it's a good point that if you build the offense, the defense can come at the right time, regardless of how much you did/didn't invest in it.

But I have to disagree with the rest of your post. The difference between Arizona's offense and ours was philosophical, not necessarily inefficient. Arizona needed to score points to outpace the defense, while Washington prefered to keep the ball on the ground and speed up the game.

Was Arizona's offense better than ours? Yeah, I think I (and everyone else) would say so. But it's not a good comparision, because Arizona's offense was NOT as good as Atlanta, New York, Miami, when you consider the philosophy and the turnovers. Arizona offense, for most of the year at least, was closer to us then it was to the elite offenses. They still managed to win 9 games though.

I also can't wrap my head around the fact that an average offense would have resulted in a 10+ win season. I mean, you can rank our defense a bunch of different ways, none of them are particularly impressive to me. They are 4th in some rankings, 5th in others, and it's probably the most mediocre 4th or 5th in NFL history.

Not to say that defense wasn't the strength of the team, but it (as you mentioned) was an 8-8 team, one with poor special teams, and an offense that was hardly inept, even if all of our games were low scoring.

I would say if we had a great defense, we would have won 10-11 games by playing ball control offense and improved special teams. As it is, we were decent there, and won 8 games, which is about what I expected considering our pythag stats.

I just feel that in some games, if we had been just a little bit better offensively, we could have won those games. I feel that in the second half of the season, the offense was unable to take advantage of the few turnovers that we had. In other games, tough stops made by the defense did not result in points when the offense took over. Or the offense could not move the ball in order to run the clock out (although we won that game, this happened during the last Philly game).

Our defense was not great, and I agree with you on that. We did not have the type of defense that Baltimore or Tennessee had, which can carry a team to 11 or 12 wins. However, we did have a good defense that led to 8 wins, while I feel we had an offense bad enough to lose 8 games. Had our bad offense been a little bit better, maybe we could have topped 9 or 10 wins.

There are people here that focus on the defense as a reason for our 8-8 season. And yes, we were probably the worst 4th or 5th ranked defense. However, if it wasn't for this defense, we could have gone worst than 8-8. Yes our defense needs to be addressed and improvements could be made. But let us not forget that major things need to happen with our offense. Otherwise, I don't think the defense can carry this team any longer.