Offseason personnel strategy

Archuleta could end up being just another Cris Dishman though.

Didn't Dishman go to the Pro-bowl as a Redskin?

i would like to see our defense look like this next year
taylor--------------springs/fox
rogers------------------------------------------------------------clements
mcintosh--------------briggs(f.a)/marshall---------------washington
carter---------gholston-----------griffen-----------adams/moses(1 rd pk)

Why wouldn't Springs be our second corner? Springs just shut down the best wideout in the NFL. It is way too early to move him to safety.

Didn't Dishman go to the Pro-bowl as a Redskin?

I think so, but then he just had a ridiculous drop into oblivion. It wasn't even a slow fade away.

I don't see the logic of moving Springs to safety. We're better off at safety than corner especially if Fox continues to hold up. Pray-low will come back next year. You need three starting cornerbacks to compete, IMO. Three wide receiver sets are as common a formatioon as you will see so the nickel back is essentially a starter. And, when Springs is healthy he's still an above average player. Rogers is not out of the woods either. I watched the game again for the third time and Delhomme played badly. I'm not saying Rogers didn't play well, but the Panthers offense was sluggish and the play calling was bad. If they show up playing better, I think we'd all be in here bitching about the same stuff we have all year.

The Nickel Package Next year

Carter/Evans Griffin/Monty Golston/Salavea Adams/Moses/FA

Washington Marshall

Springs Wright Rogers


Taylor Fox/Pray-Low

I dont know if this is accurate, I thougth pierce got a deal worth around 25 million, arrington had good money, smoot got good money. Clark was clearly a mistake the whoel way around.

Yes, you are right. Pierce got a 6-year deal with about 6.5 million in guaranteed money and about 26-million over the course of the contract. Apologies for the number.

first - mccune is a workout warrior and he's 28, that's not young. when we drafted him he was already 26.

your contract numbers - pierce got a 30mill 6 year deal, no idea where you got the 7mill figure.

also, saying you'd like to trade down is nice, but which players are you looking at? there's gotta be someone there worth taking, and trading down does (i believe) end up giving denver the option to swap picks if we end up with a low first rounder.

we'll get NOTHING for archuleta or carter - even as 2year vet min deals for the new team they're not worth much above the 5th round, and each would result in a huge cap hit.

don't fantasize too much about smoot ;) he's the nickel corner in minnesota now and he'd have cost more than springs. it was a good call to let him go, though we could have signed andre dyson for the same amount as rogers and still drafted merriman (dyson isn't a big tackler though, so GW was probably down on that :( ).

I don't think carter is solid at DE either. last game, wynn and daniels were started (and surprise, we played better on the DL), with carter coming in as a situational guy.

personally, i'm still riding the gaines/clements bandwagon.

There is some legitimate criticism here. The Pierce number I pulled from an inaccurate Web site and the new estimate I found was 6-years at $26 million with $6.5 in guaranteed bonuses. For the signing bonus we paid Archuleta though, we still could have covered both Pierce's and Clark's bonuses.

Regarding your point about trading down, I'm not suggesting the front office should arbitrarily trade down. If there is an offer made that allows them to recoup some lost material, I think they should take advantage. I don't believe you trade down to take someone; you trade down because you don't have an impending need to take someone where you are at and someone else values the pick more than you do. We have been on the other side of this equation quite a bit and I'm suggesting that a strategy that values the draft would compel the front office to look for ways of increasing draft potential, not decreasing draft potential.

Regarding your point about Smoot, I don't look at this as strictly a dollars and cents issue. I think it is about taking care of your own and the net effect that this has on your entire team and the brand loyalty of an organization. If players see that other Redskins are playing well, and are rewarded accordingly, the net effect is going to be positive. That being said, I do tend to agree that the Smoot contract was excessive. I do feel that if he is cut and comes available, I feel as though the Skins should think very carefully about bringing him back.

Regarding your point about Carter, I really think the verdict is out. Of course I respect your doubts and they are well founded.

There is some legitimate criticism here. The Pierce number I pulled from an inaccurate Web site and the new estimate I found was 6-years at $26 million with $6.5 in guaranteed bonuses. For the signing bonus we paid Archuleta though, we still could have covered both Pierce's and Clark's bonuses.

Regarding your point about trading down, I'm not suggesting the front office should arbitrarily trade down. If there is an offer made that allows them to recoup some lost material, I think they should take advantage. I don't believe you trade down to take someone; you trade down because you don't have an impending need to take someone where you are at and someone else values the pick more than you do. We have been on the other side of this equation quite a bit and I'm suggesting that a strategy that values the draft would compel the front office to look for ways of increasing draft potential, not decreasing draft potential.

Regarding your point about Smoot, I don't look at this as strictly a dollars and cents issue. I think it is about taking care of your own and the net effect that this has on your entire team and the brand loyalty of an organization. If players see that other Redskins are playing well, and are rewarded accordingly, the net effect is going to be positive. That being said, I do tend to agree that the Smoot contract was excessive. I do feel that if he is cut and comes available, I feel as though the Skins should think very carefully about bringing him back.

Regarding your point about Carter, I really think the verdict is out. Of course I respect your doubts and they are well founded.

I am with you 100% that we should have kept Pierce and Smoot. I think the salary cap was a little tight that year so they let Pierce and Smoot go. Although they did eat Coles' contract and sign Santana to an extension when they could have let him play for the number that the Jets had on his last year. I guess you could argue that if they signed Smoot and Pierce, they could have traded down and then they wouldn't have had to pay ninth draft pick money.

Anyway, you can't change it now. I just wish they could play as hard as they did against the Panthers on a consistent basis. With that effort they easily would have beaten Minny, Tennessee (who gets better every week), and the lowly Bucs. But then we would still have Brunell calling the plays...

the cap was tight, and there was no way we could let santana play on his old contract - he held out until it was fixed, AND if we had made him play, his current contract would be insane compared to the one he was given at the time.

as far as your point on trading down - it doesn't necessarily increase your draft potential at all. trading down and bypassing merriman, for example, would have been a horrible move. and we definitely have a huge need at DE, if nothing else (though depth and defensive age are big issues as well - marshall will be 31, washington 29, springs and the DL getting past 30, etc).

if we pass on gaines, but end up with grubbs + okoye or something, then there's a decent trade off, but if we trade down and miss a 10 time pro bowler for 2 average starters (which are easy to find), that'd be a huge mistake.

You know if there was a plan to move Springs to safety, why the hell would we waste that money on AA.

Another thing, when looking at the cap sheets, are the release fees for 2006 if we cut them right now. Meaning that the release fees for 2007 will be what we are charged if we release someone after the season?

I don't think that was the plan, but it looks like that's where we're at.