Jon Jansen: Starter Next Year?

The 0-line is "getting old" it isn't old yet. Over 31 is not old. that is considered still prime. I think we have a year or two with these guys, that we can draft some guys and mold them into lineman. Heyer is being one of those guys, I think when these guys are on the field together we have one of the best lines in the NFL. Proven last year when I believe their rating was 5th in the NFL.. I dont understand why people are bashing the oline. It is (was) one of our strong points of last season, and unfortunately we had injuries. No way we throw that away! Thomas is still one of the best guards in the league, Casey one probably top 10 centers, and Samuels and Jansen as bookend tackles is probably one of the top 5 or 10 tandems in the NFL.

I agree, O-lineman typically are very effective players into their mid 30's.

I cannot, absolutely cannot, fathom how we're even having a discussion surrounding Chris Samuels. He's nothing short of a stud. He's not "sub par" in pass protection. He's fantastic at it.

Letting in the occasional sack against the top DEs, when you NEVER get help from a TE, does not constitute being sub par in pass protection.

What's more, we're financially committed to him. Cutting him, trading him, or doing ANYTHING but keeping him would be prohibitive from a salary cap standpoint.

This discussion is getting more retarded with each post.

Beating this speculative stuff around IS retarded. Who in their right mind advocates ditching seasoned lineman of ....some distinction, for maybes? Possibly, good maybes, but nevertheless?????????
Save it for camp
HTTR
BEAT THE GMEN

Please explain to me, besides tackling someone, with the setup Jansen had he COULD hold anyone. That said, this discussion has come up before, Jansen got a holding penalty, showed his thumbs to the ref and seemingly yelled 'how.' Its not impressive that someone with 4 fingers on each hand didn't get a holding penalty, Id be more impressed if he did =p

Jansen a rock? Next time hes on the field, watch him. When he gets worked all preseason in 1v1 simple scheme type deals, there's an issue. I havent been impressed with him for some time. Regardless of what everyone feels on this issue, I think we can all agree its time to start reloading our line from the draft now. That gives them time to learn and by the time expensive contracts come, they'll be ready to step in and start.


I was pointing out the fact that he played essentially with 8 fingers and had to use more footwork and technique than being able to grab the jersey inder the pads which oline man generally do. The fact that he was able to move DE and Dt's around at a sizeable disadvantage. IF he struggles(d) how come our Oline was the obvious strength last season, how come 3 if not 4 of the oline man were considered probowl material by some of the NFL "experts".

I do agree that we need to start addressing the Oline through the draft (mid round selections) to mold into starters. Like I previously stated, Heyer seems to be on that path. I do think we can all agree, when all 5 of those guys are healthy, which for the most part of their career, they have been, is an above average (5th in the NFL in ranking last season).

As Schneed has pointed out we cannot cut Samuels and I think he is just fine at Left Tackle. I am of the opinion that Jansen should be kept and when healthy he is fine. As many have pointed out the salary cap has constrained the Skins and I think this offseason we are going to have to redo several contracts to convert salaries and bonuses to get under the cap and have additonal room to sign some players - so the argument of "getting rid of either Samuels or Jansen" is really not even worth considering - the Skins have already shelled out the money with both of these players and they need to stick with them. Even if you got a reaonable trade offer for Samuels the cap hit from trading him would be devastating so the Skins probably wouldn't even bother thinking twice if the got an inquiry from another team.

As far as the draft - we need a defensive end in the worst way to replace Philip Daniels and the Skins would be fools to pass up on a DE in the first round. I have mentioned along with others that there is a nice stock of DE's in the first round and the Skins would be wise to choose one of them. In my opinion age hits defensive lineman a lot harder than offensive lineman - especially at the DE position. How many sacks does Daniels even have? Let alone how many qb hurries does he have? I would venture to say he does not have many and one of the reasons is his speed continues to go down as he is getting old. Take a look at the next three games and see how much time the opposing qb gets and you should come to the same conclusion I did - we are giving the oppising qb's too much time and the only way I see the Skins fixing this is by drafting a DE.

As far as the second pick down - I would have no problem if the Skins went and drafted a guard because Pete Kendall is older and his contract expires after next year, so to me this would be a logical choice because with Kendalls contract expiring the salary cap constraints would not be there versus getting a tackle and cutting either Jansen or Samuels, who have several more years left on their respective contracts.

As far as other picks I would like a bigger WR and I think a safety or CB should be looked at as well.

This discussion is insane. No one in his right mind would bench Jansen. It would be crazy to trade Chris Samuels in his prime. There are very few left tackles better than Chris Samuels. Now this thread did bring up a priority for the off-season and that is to draft offensive line depth. Replacing the starters, to me, is not a priority.

I cannot, absolutely cannot, fathom how we're even having a discussion surrounding Chris Samuels. He's nothing short of a stud. He's not "sub par" in pass protection. He's fantastic at it.

Letting in the occasional sack against the top DEs, when you NEVER get help from a TE, does not constitute being sub par in pass protection.

What's more, we're financially committed to him. Cutting him, trading him, or doing ANYTHING but keeping him would be prohibitive from a salary cap standpoint.

No one remembers what it was like when our line was bad. That's how good Samuels is. He has made us forget what a sub-par LT really is. We'll remember when he is gone.

The 0-line is "getting old" it isn't old yet. Over 31 is not old. that is considered still prime. I think we have a year or two with these guys, that we can draft some guys and mold them into lineman. Heyer is being one of those guys, I think when these guys are on the field together we have one of the best lines in the NFL. Proven last year when I believe their rating was 5th in the NFL.. I dont understand why people are bashing the oline. It is (was) one of our strong points of last season, and unfortunately we had injuries. No way we throw that away! Thomas is still one of the best guards in the league, Casey one probably top 10 centers, and Samuels and Jansen as bookend tackles is probably one of the top 5 or 10 tandems in the NFL.

While I would agree that a line having a couple of 30+ guys on it is not neccessarily old, I would humbly suggest that a line consisting ENTIRELY of individuals over 31 is an old line. While I absolutely agree that lineman can be effective into their mid-thirties, I also think it is a recipe for disaster to plan on getting 16 games out of all five of these guys (My prediction for next year - Out of the 80 starts possible, these five guys will make 50-55). Indiviually, I like them all (yes, even Rabach); collectively, they are a concern. I would further suggest that 32-36 is NOT considered "prime" for an O-lineman, but rather a period where a good, experienced lineman can still be "effective".

12th - Can a line lose two starters and be effective or not suffer drop off? Of course not. That has never been my point. I do think we could have been better prepared by drafting some lineman instead of Broughten and White for example.

Really, I am merely prophesizing doom and gloom for the lack of youth in the pipeline and gnashing my teeth over the staff's failure to find young talent to be developing NOW as this line is "getting old".

Given the lack of depth, the discussion as to getting rid of JJ and/or CS is, as others have suggested, insane. We have no one to step and, even if they have lost a step, the starter guys are just so much farther ahead than anything we have, or are likely to get, as back-ups.

While I would agree that a line having a couple of 30+ guys on it is not neccessarily old, I would humbly suggest that a line consisting ENTIRELY of individuals over 31 is an old line. While I absolutely agree that lineman can be effective into their mid-thirties, I also think it is a recipe for disaster to plan on getting 16 games out of all five of these guys (My prediction for next year - Out of the 80 starts possible, these five guys will make 50-55). Indiviually, I like them all (yes, even Rabach); collectively, they are a concern. I would further suggest that 32-36 is NOT considered "prime" for an O-lineman, but rather a period where a good, experienced lineman can still be "effective".

12th - Can a line lose two starters and be effective or not suffer drop off? Of course not. That has never been my point. I do think we could have been better prepared by drafting some lineman instead of Broughten and White for example.

Really, I am merely prophesizing doom and gloom for the lack of youth in the pipeline and gnashing my teeth over the staff's failure to find young talent to be developing NOW as this line is "getting old".

Given the lack of depth, the discussion as to getting rid of JJ and/or CS is, as others have suggested, insane. We have no one to step and, even if they have lost a step, the starter guys are just so much farther ahead than anything we have, or are likely to get, as back-ups.

But how do you know when you're better prepared? I guess what I'm saying is, you don't know til you know. Just because we would have drafted some kid or had proper depth, as some would say, doesn't automatically mean that individual comes in does any better than the guys who we've already plugged in there.

Truthfully, how much better could a back-up, any back-up, play than Heyer, Wade, and Fabini? I'm thinking if they're that much better than those three, they are are most definitely starting material.

Don't get me wrong, the point and comments are well taken. The Skins should have and probably could have done better.

I think I just broke the record for using the word better in one post.

You want to trade Jansen & Samuels, two Skins that we drafted, yet you want to "focus on drafting O linemen?" I understand that you see a need for youth, but these are our 2 bookend tackles that we were able to re-sign & our core players.

I'm all for drafting some O linemen this year, but they'd be to backup JJ & CS, not start for them.

No offense, but the idea of getting rid of those 2 guys is crazy unless we got a herschel walker type offer for each of them.

When 1 guy hardly ever plays due to injury its hard to call CS & JJ bookend tackles. Nobody would take JJ as he's too injury prone & unreliable. Someone might take CS and we could maybe get a 2nd rounder for him.

Your trade scenario is an our trash (JJ & CS are not trash but they are not top flight either) for someone else's treasure classic. The Skins would be lucky to get offers for these guys let alson a HW type trade.