WP: Redskins Targeting London Fletcher, Nate Clements

that isn't even comparable, a QB to a MLB. totally different positions. MLB takes suck a beating game in and game out. at 32 QB's are still on top of their game. MLB's for the most part are on the way down.

great, tell that to zach thomas or donnie edwards. last i checked they had damn fine seasons too.

Yeah and all I think about when I think of Fletcher is Barrow. But Barrow was not a typical situation. That went as bad as it could have gone by any standard. I mean the guy went from not missing a snap in 8 7 seaosns to out of the league due to injury in 2. No one saw that coming and I don't think that one instance of anecdotal evidence is enough to wash our hands of experienced MLBs. If fletcher comes in and gets hurt day one and never plays again then we are cursed.

barrow was a known injury risk and given a contract in accordance to that. fiore (OL) got the same type of deal. it wasn't a monster deal.

How was Barrow a known injury risk? The guy was a rock his entire career.

In regards to the draft, drafting a guy in the 1st or 2nd round is just as much a crap shoot as drafting a guy in the 6th or 7th.

uh, actually, that's not true. not even close. how many starting QBs were 1st round picks? how many were 3rd-4th and how many were 6th or 7th rounders? i mean, you may think grossman sucks, but the low round QBs on that roster are even worse, and that's probably why they weren't taken earlier.

How was Barrow a known injury risk? The guy was a rock his entire career.

unless i'm remembering incorrectly, that's why the giants let him go, and that's why he didn't get a huge deal from someone else.

This article states it was a cap move

Michael Eisen - Story - 3/10 Giants Release LB Mike Barrow - Giants.com (http://www.giants.com/news/eisen/story.asp?story_id=650)

unless i'm remembering incorrectly, that's why the giants let him go, and that's why he didn't get a huge deal from someone else.

I think you are "mis-remembering". He hadn't missed a game in either 6 or 7 years and that team sucked so he had little incentive other than money to stay there We offered more and he hurt his knee like first day of practice or something and the rest was history. I think the big thing about him when he was signed was that he never got hurt.

Edit: Ok so they cut him for cap reasons.

great, tell that to zach thomas or donnie edwards. last i checked they had damn fine seasons too.

there are always exceptions to the rule. didn't you learn that in english class. For every 32+ year old player having fine seasons, there are just as many or probably more riding the bench, playing sparingly, or injured all the time. I think people are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying the guy can't play!! I am just saying I would prefer us to go in a different direction in regards to signing players that old. I would imagine there is someone younger just as good. He has had a very solid career, I know that and yes last season he had a pretty damn good one. But why is it players of that age play their ass off in a contract year, especially at that age, then crap out. I am not saying he would or will. just my stance on signing new players at that age.

Well first off Rocky is an OLB and despite what many seem to think MLB and OLB are not just interchangeable. Especially in GW's system. In this system the MLB is the QB of the defense. He has to know what everyone is supposed to do so he can adjust when he diagrams what the other team is doing. For some reason I highly doubt anyone at Redskins park is willing to go into the next season with a guy who showed he can play the position average(Marshall) and a second year player who couldn't even crack the lineup at his natural position until mop up time. Rocky is not the answer.

As for trading down I agree it would be great to trade down and pick up several quality players but there are some problems with that too. First and foremost people make the statement 'trade down and pick up some more picks' just like they make the 'hire a GM statement'. Like it is some magical formula where you can go to the GM store or the Tradedown store and magically everything is fine. Well I have news for those people, trading takes two teams and if no one is willing to offer anything of value it won't happen. It is NOT a sound strategy to PLAN ON TRADING. You plan and prepare on NOT TRADING DOWN and if an opportuniy arises then you re-evaluate. The same for a GM. Just because we have a GM doesn't mean everything is fine. He would need to be a GOOD GM. There are plenty of teams who have traded down and ended up with scrap pieces because they traded away a shot at a difference maker and ended up with decent roll players. And there are plenty teams that never win championships with GMs.

That being said, you go into free agency looking to fix as many holes as possible so you dont have to rely on drafting to field 22 decent starters. Then the draft is used for depth. If we can bring a guy who knows the systems and can play why would his age be a problem? No one is expecting the guy to come in be the MLB for the next 8 years. We are talking about getting a good player to play for us while we build depth at the same position and others also.

I totally fail to see why his age is even a consideration other than for health reasons.

Thank you for some providing some sanity to the board. Trading down at this point is NOT the smart option. We need a difference maker on the D-line and we're likely to get one with this pick. Secondly, announcing that you would like to trade down immediately diminishes the value of your pick. I personally would like to see a solid d-line starter come out of this draft as opposed to a couple of "project" players. If a team comes along and really want our slot and is willing to give greater value on the Jimmy Johnson draft points system, then I would consider, but until then, go with the pick.

Also, when evaluating a player, I wish more people would ask the questions in an order relevant to "field value". For example:

1 tie) Can this guy play in my system
1 tie) Does he have the physical talent to improve my team
3) Is he injury prone
4) Is he a quality character person or a PITA
5) Will his numbers fit my cap plans

Age doesn't come up unless it's relevant to #3 IMHO.

3)

there are always exceptions to the rule. didn't you learn that in english class. For every 32+ year old player having fine seasons, there are just as many or probably more riding the bench, playing sparingly, or injured all the time. I think people are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying the guy can't play!! I am just saying I would prefer us to go in a different direction in regards to signing players that old. I would imagine there is someone younger just as good. He has had a very solid career, I know that and yes last season he had a pretty damn good one. But why is it players of that age play their ass off in a contract year, especially at that age, then crap out. I am not saying he would or will. just my stance on signing new players at that age.

So you'd rather bring back a banged up Arrington and put him out of position at MLB?

Have you even checked the market for MLB's this year?? It's painfully thin, Fletcher like it or not is easily the best option out there especially considering he's had success playing in this defense before.