- Thread starter x69twisted
- Start date
LAZARUS_LOGAN
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,639
- Reaction score
- 207
Yeah you're right. What am I saying? A person that has played OLB in the 3-4 for basically his entire college career certainly couldn't possibly grade out against a stiff-hipped good 4-3 DE that will have to learn a new system and position within that system. Onward fool.
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
Brooks Reed did not play 3-4 basically his entire college career.
And I haven't seen anyone have Reed over Kerrigan. Not even close.
What a laughably idiotic criticism of the Redskins' pick.
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
Will he do better than Anthony Spencer? Probably not. He's not an explosive player either.
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
Redskins following Cowboys' example, adding 'Party Decks' to FedEx Field
SportsDayDFW sports
ASHBURN, Va. -- The Washington Redskins are turning the upper deck into a party place.
The Redskins are ripping out thousands of seats in the end zone nosebleed sections of FedEx Field to construct "Party Decks," reducing the capacity of one of the NFL's largest stadiums.
The team said Tuesday it will sell standing-room-only tickets to the decks, which are expected to be ready in time for the 2012 season.
The remodeling job will drop the stadium's capacity from 91,704 to about 85,000, still the NFL's largest for routine games. The Dallas Cowboys' stadium usually seats 80,000 but can be expanded to more than 100,000.
The Redskins don't often give their fans a reason to party. They've have lost 11 of 14 at the stadium and are 42-46 at home since 2000.
SportsDayDFW sports
ASHBURN, Va. -- The Washington Redskins are turning the upper deck into a party place.
The Redskins are ripping out thousands of seats in the end zone nosebleed sections of FedEx Field to construct "Party Decks," reducing the capacity of one of the NFL's largest stadiums.
The team said Tuesday it will sell standing-room-only tickets to the decks, which are expected to be ready in time for the 2012 season.
The remodeling job will drop the stadium's capacity from 91,704 to about 85,000, still the NFL's largest for routine games. The Dallas Cowboys' stadium usually seats 80,000 but can be expanded to more than 100,000.
The Redskins don't often give their fans a reason to party. They've have lost 11 of 14 at the stadium and are 42-46 at home since 2000.
- Messages
- 5,432
- Reaction score
- 0
What else is new ?
The Mig can't formulate his own ideas...
How did he become a billionaire again ?
The Mig can't formulate his own ideas...
How did he become a billionaire again ?
Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
Seriously. He's already got bigger screens, so what's next, a Miller Light section?? He might as well rename FedEX, Arlington Stadium East.
LAZARUS_LOGAN
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,639
- Reaction score
- 207
Without a doubt. The Cowboys win more there than the Redskins anyway. It's the Cowboys' home away from home.
Trent Williams, LaRon Landry skip workout again
By Mike Jones
Second-year left tackle Trent Williams and safety LaRon Landry are among the key players who have yet to attend one of the Redskins players’ informal group workout sessions.
Williams has been training in Houston this offseason. And Landry has been training in Phoenix. Neither attended the April or May workouts.
Selvish Capers took the snaps at left tackle Tuesday and Chris Horton took snaps at strong safety.
Offseason addition O.J. Atogwe also has yet to attend. London Fletcher said last time out that the newly acquired free safety had a scheduling conflict that kept him away last month. Anderson Russell is currently holding down the free safety spot.
Cornerback DeAngello Hall isn’t working with his teammates, so rookie safety DeJon Gomes is playing corner opposite Kevin Barnes.
Starting center Casey Rabach isn’t here today, so Will Montgomery held down that spot, with Kory Lichtensteiger and rookie Maurice Hurt flanking him at the guard spots.
By Mike Jones
Second-year left tackle Trent Williams and safety LaRon Landry are among the key players who have yet to attend one of the Redskins players’ informal group workout sessions.
Williams has been training in Houston this offseason. And Landry has been training in Phoenix. Neither attended the April or May workouts.
Selvish Capers took the snaps at left tackle Tuesday and Chris Horton took snaps at strong safety.
Offseason addition O.J. Atogwe also has yet to attend. London Fletcher said last time out that the newly acquired free safety had a scheduling conflict that kept him away last month. Anderson Russell is currently holding down the free safety spot.
Cornerback DeAngello Hall isn’t working with his teammates, so rookie safety DeJon Gomes is playing corner opposite Kevin Barnes.
Starting center Casey Rabach isn’t here today, so Will Montgomery held down that spot, with Kory Lichtensteiger and rookie Maurice Hurt flanking him at the guard spots.
Redskins unlikely to get more than a 6th round pick for McNabb
7/5/2011 9:59:37 AM | More
According to Jason Reid of the Washington Post, Donovan McNabb probably would give back his $3.5 million signing bonus if the Redskins were willing to release him when the lockout ends, but Shanahan wants something more than money after squandering second- and fourth-round picks on McNabb. If the Redskins move McNabb a minute after a new collective bargaining agreement is formally implemented or wait until the day after their first regular season game — the option deadline — it would still be surprising if any team offered more than a sixth- or conditional seventh-round pick for him.
7/5/2011 9:59:37 AM | More
According to Jason Reid of the Washington Post, Donovan McNabb probably would give back his $3.5 million signing bonus if the Redskins were willing to release him when the lockout ends, but Shanahan wants something more than money after squandering second- and fourth-round picks on McNabb. If the Redskins move McNabb a minute after a new collective bargaining agreement is formally implemented or wait until the day after their first regular season game — the option deadline — it would still be surprising if any team offered more than a sixth- or conditional seventh-round pick for him.
Report: Mutual interest between Redskins and Cullen Jenkins
7/6/2011 1:51:39 PM | More
According to Mike Jones of the Washington Post, a person familiar with the situation said that there is mutual interest between Washington and defensive end Cullen Jenkins, who recorded eight sacks last season for Green Bay and is now a free agent.
7/6/2011 1:51:39 PM | More
According to Mike Jones of the Washington Post, a person familiar with the situation said that there is mutual interest between Washington and defensive end Cullen Jenkins, who recorded eight sacks last season for Green Bay and is now a free agent.
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
Starting Beck is no 'tank' job for Redskins
By Dan Graziano
This all started in April, at the draft, when everybody knew the Redskins needed a quarterback, but they didn't pick one. This meant something must be up. And when coach Mike Shanahan explained things shortly thereafter by saying the Redskins wanted to go with John Beck because they thought highly of him coming out of school, it didn't mollify the doubters. Shanahan can't be serious, most people thought. There's some sort of trick at work here. My first thought was that Shanahan was trying to leverage potential trade partners or free agents by pumping up Beck as a viable option he already had.
But in the months since, it's become clear that the Redskins' 2011 quarterback plan is, in fact, Beck. Or some combination of Beck and Rex Grossman. And so the comments and questions I now receive about the Redskins' quarterback situation have two running themes, neither of which makes any sense at all:
1. The Redskins are trying to "tank" the 2011 season so they can lose as many games as possible, get the No. 1 draft pick in 2012 and take Stanford's Andrew Luck.
2. This is a good idea.
Enough already. The Redskins are in no way planning to "tank" an entire NFL season, mainly because teams don't do that. This (thankfully) isn't the NBA, where the insane salary-cap structure encourages teams to lose games intentionally in an effort to improve their position in the draft and/or free agency. The 2011 Redskins are not the 2008-09 New York Knicks, and their decision to go with apparently substandard personnel at the most important position on the field shouldn't make anybody think this is the case.
Why would any team go into any NFL season convinced it didn't have a chance to win? This league is as unpredictable, year to year, as any in the world. Every year, at least one team that was lousy the year before shocks everyone and wins its division. Anybody see the Chiefs coming last year? The Bengals the year before that? The only thing you know about how an NFL season is going to go is that you don't know. And this year -- with the offseason wiped out by the lockout and an insane, compressed free-agency period still to come -- could be one of the toughest ever to predict.
So why tank? What if you turn out to be good? What if Beck plays all right, the defense comes together in the second year of the 3-4, the young running backs are studs and the offensive line takes a big step forward? The Redskins won six games last year. (Same as the Cowboys, by the way. Should they "tank" too?) The Skins need to add three to that total to contend for a playoff spot. Do I think they'll do it? No, I do not. But I'm going to miss on some team. I know that for sure. Some team will have a better year than any of us expected. That mere fact is the biggest reason you don't -- and shouldn't -- see NFL teams "tank" seasons.
This is what the Redskins are saying if they go with Beck/Grossman at quarterback for this year:
1. They didn't view any of the quarterbacks they could have drafted as their long-term solution at the position.
2. They know that the first round of next year's draft includes several guys who could fit that description. Not just Luck, but guys like Landry Jones and Matt Barkley, too. You don't need to have the No. 1 pick next year to fix your quarterback problem. You just need to stay flexible enough to be able to move into position to get the guy you like.
3. For that reason, the Redskins don't want to deal draft picks for (or commit long-term money to) a veteran quarterback such as Carson Palmer or Matt Hasselbeck, who might help them win an extra game or two this year, only to find themselves unable to move into the draft position they'll need to be in next April.
4. The Redskins have enough other needs that, without an available quarterback option they like better than Beck, it makes more sense to address cornerback, the lines and maybe wide receiver than to force a quarterback solution with which they're not comfortable.
That is a sensible way of doing things, and that's what the Redskins are up to if they go with Beck and/or Grossman. They're not "tanking." Shanahan is in the second year of a five-year contract. And although, yes, there is a rebuilding component to Shanahan's assignment, owner Dan Snyder didn't give him that contract and then tell him it was OK to be one of the league's worst teams for more than half of it. Snyder wants to win as soon as possible. Shanahan wants to win as soon as possible. And he and general manager Bruce Allen are balancing that desire with the long-term health of the franchise and making reasonable decisions instead of rash ones. Given the recent history of Redskins offseasons, you'd think their fans would appreciate that.
The worst-case scenario is that it all falls apart, Beck is a disaster, and the Redskins do indeed find themselves in a position to draft Luck, Jones or Barkley. The best-case scenario is that Shanahan coaches Beck into a quality starter and they go into next year's draft not needing a quarterback. The most likely result is somewhere in between, and that's fine. Because there are a lot of good potential outcomes in between those two. And the Redskins (and every other NFL team) would be foolish to rule them all out.
By Dan Graziano
This all started in April, at the draft, when everybody knew the Redskins needed a quarterback, but they didn't pick one. This meant something must be up. And when coach Mike Shanahan explained things shortly thereafter by saying the Redskins wanted to go with John Beck because they thought highly of him coming out of school, it didn't mollify the doubters. Shanahan can't be serious, most people thought. There's some sort of trick at work here. My first thought was that Shanahan was trying to leverage potential trade partners or free agents by pumping up Beck as a viable option he already had.
But in the months since, it's become clear that the Redskins' 2011 quarterback plan is, in fact, Beck. Or some combination of Beck and Rex Grossman. And so the comments and questions I now receive about the Redskins' quarterback situation have two running themes, neither of which makes any sense at all:
1. The Redskins are trying to "tank" the 2011 season so they can lose as many games as possible, get the No. 1 draft pick in 2012 and take Stanford's Andrew Luck.
2. This is a good idea.
Enough already. The Redskins are in no way planning to "tank" an entire NFL season, mainly because teams don't do that. This (thankfully) isn't the NBA, where the insane salary-cap structure encourages teams to lose games intentionally in an effort to improve their position in the draft and/or free agency. The 2011 Redskins are not the 2008-09 New York Knicks, and their decision to go with apparently substandard personnel at the most important position on the field shouldn't make anybody think this is the case.
Why would any team go into any NFL season convinced it didn't have a chance to win? This league is as unpredictable, year to year, as any in the world. Every year, at least one team that was lousy the year before shocks everyone and wins its division. Anybody see the Chiefs coming last year? The Bengals the year before that? The only thing you know about how an NFL season is going to go is that you don't know. And this year -- with the offseason wiped out by the lockout and an insane, compressed free-agency period still to come -- could be one of the toughest ever to predict.
So why tank? What if you turn out to be good? What if Beck plays all right, the defense comes together in the second year of the 3-4, the young running backs are studs and the offensive line takes a big step forward? The Redskins won six games last year. (Same as the Cowboys, by the way. Should they "tank" too?) The Skins need to add three to that total to contend for a playoff spot. Do I think they'll do it? No, I do not. But I'm going to miss on some team. I know that for sure. Some team will have a better year than any of us expected. That mere fact is the biggest reason you don't -- and shouldn't -- see NFL teams "tank" seasons.
This is what the Redskins are saying if they go with Beck/Grossman at quarterback for this year:
1. They didn't view any of the quarterbacks they could have drafted as their long-term solution at the position.
2. They know that the first round of next year's draft includes several guys who could fit that description. Not just Luck, but guys like Landry Jones and Matt Barkley, too. You don't need to have the No. 1 pick next year to fix your quarterback problem. You just need to stay flexible enough to be able to move into position to get the guy you like.
3. For that reason, the Redskins don't want to deal draft picks for (or commit long-term money to) a veteran quarterback such as Carson Palmer or Matt Hasselbeck, who might help them win an extra game or two this year, only to find themselves unable to move into the draft position they'll need to be in next April.
4. The Redskins have enough other needs that, without an available quarterback option they like better than Beck, it makes more sense to address cornerback, the lines and maybe wide receiver than to force a quarterback solution with which they're not comfortable.
That is a sensible way of doing things, and that's what the Redskins are up to if they go with Beck and/or Grossman. They're not "tanking." Shanahan is in the second year of a five-year contract. And although, yes, there is a rebuilding component to Shanahan's assignment, owner Dan Snyder didn't give him that contract and then tell him it was OK to be one of the league's worst teams for more than half of it. Snyder wants to win as soon as possible. Shanahan wants to win as soon as possible. And he and general manager Bruce Allen are balancing that desire with the long-term health of the franchise and making reasonable decisions instead of rash ones. Given the recent history of Redskins offseasons, you'd think their fans would appreciate that.
The worst-case scenario is that it all falls apart, Beck is a disaster, and the Redskins do indeed find themselves in a position to draft Luck, Jones or Barkley. The best-case scenario is that Shanahan coaches Beck into a quality starter and they go into next year's draft not needing a quarterback. The most likely result is somewhere in between, and that's fine. Because there are a lot of good potential outcomes in between those two. And the Redskins (and every other NFL team) would be foolish to rule them all out.
- Messages
- 6,827
- Reaction score
- 1
Beck will look like Joe Montana against us...
LAZARUS_LOGAN
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,639
- Reaction score
- 207
How can an already bad team tank on purpose?
LAZARUS_LOGAN
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,639
- Reaction score
- 207
Doubtful. If Wade were still the HC, I would be incline to agree with you. Tell you the truth, Beck may start the first two games, but coem the 3rd game when they face the Cowboys, I can see Shanahan pulling him and putting in Rex.
C
Cr122
Guest
Really. I highly doubt the team will tank on purpose. This guy is a phucking moron.
Heyz, guys ifs we loze all teh games we can draft Andrew Luck!! :hand
Heyz, guys ifs we loze all teh games we can draft Andrew Luck!! :hand
C
Cr122
Guest
Why not that doofus from Arizona did. If we have the same safeties in the secondary they will.
LAZARUS_LOGAN
Pro Bowler
- Messages
- 14,639
- Reaction score
- 207