Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

I hate our current options at RT. Heyer has a lot to prove and Jansen's best days are behind him.

Do you hate our options at RDE and SLB more or less? How would you prioritize these needs, both at who we have penciled in as starters and in terms of depth?

This is how i Prioritize our needs:

Need for an immediate upgrade at the starting position
1. SLB (Blades is not, and never will be, starting SLB material)
2. OT (Heyer is a better RT than Blades is an SLB IMO)
3. DE (who do we have? Rob Jackson? Chris Wilson? This would be #1 if not for the fact that Haynesworth instantly makes whoever lines up at DE better)

Need for an upgraded depth

2. OT - Heyer and Jansen provide adequate depth if someone else were starting... but we're completely screwed if Samuels goes down.
1. LB - I cant name a single LB on our roster other than McIntosh, Fletch, and Blades - thats scary. (EDIT: Looks like Finch is back)
3. DE - Wilson and Jackson are what you expect a team to have as depth. If we bring back Daniels and Wynn as expected, we have even more depth here, but no true starter.

If we bring back Washington at the vet minimum, then we clearly need to take an OT with the first pick. However, if we dont, then i think SLB is a more pressing need. The question then becomes, would a 3rd round LB be better than a 3rd round OT - 99% of the time, id say yes. So the next question becomes, who has the most potential to provide the biggest immediate and long-term impact of the players available at 13? Someone like Oher or someone like Maualuga?

To update the Fincher signing...

Redskins Re-sign Fincher (http://www.redskins.com/gen/articles/Redskins_Re_sign_Fincher_32862.jsp)

Do you hate our options at RDE and SLB more or less? How would you prioritize these needs, both at who we have penciled in as starters and in terms of depth?

This is how i Prioritize our needs:

Need for an immediate upgrade at the starting position
1. SLB (Blades is not, and never will be, starting SLB material)
2. OT (Heyer is a better RT than Blades is an SLB IMO)
3. DE (who do we have? Rob Jackson? Chris Wilson? This would be #1 if not for the fact that Haynesworth instantly makes whoever lines up at DE better)

Need for an upgraded depth

2. OT - Heyer and Jansen provide adequate depth if someone else were starting... but we're completely screwed if Samuels goes down.
1. LB - I cant name a single LB on our roster other than McIntosh, Fletch, and Blades - thats scary. (EDIT: Looks like Finch is back)
3. DE - Wilson and Jackson are what you expect a team to have as depth. If we bring back Daniels and Wynn as expected, we have even more depth here, but no true starter.

If we bring back Washington at the vet minimum, then we clearly need to take an OT with the first pick. However, if we dont, then i think SLB is a more pressing need. The question then becomes, would a 3rd round LB be better than a 3rd round OT - 99% of the time, id say yes. So the next question becomes, who has the most potential to provide the biggest immediate and long-term impact of the players available at 13? Someone like Oher or someone like Maualuga?No reason to trash Blades who has done nothing in the NFL except put together a pair of excellent seasons off the bench, and can probably start in the NFL at any position.

I agree with your assessment of our needs though. But the reason isn't because Blades is camp fodder. It's because even as our 2nd best LB, Blades doesn't help answer the question "who is going to get to the quarterback".

We had Jason Taylor. We let him go. Now we need to replace him, but the FA market is simply too light on players who can do that.

Thankfully the draft is deep, but we're probably going to have to move up from the third round to take advantage of that. One name: Cody Brown from Connecticut (I like how they're UConn in basketball, but not in any other sport).

Cody Brown is someone we spoke to back at the Combine, but as I understand we talked to a lot of linebackers (more so than any other position)

No reason to trash Blades who has done nothing in the NFL except put together a pair of excellent seasons off the bench, and can probably start in the NFL at any position.

great! i'm so glad we finally found our new RT ;)

No reason to trash Blades who has done nothing in the NFL except put together a pair of excellent seasons off the bench, and can probably start in the NFL at any position.

Just for the record, ive got nothing against Blades at all. Hes a great backup for all the positions, but if were talking about him as a starter, i dont like the idea of having two smallish LBs as starters. As long as Fletcher can still play at an exceptionally high level, i think Blades should stay in his intended role as our primary backup MLB and first guy off the bench for any LB who is injured or has to sit out for a bit.

I agree with your assessment of our needs though. But the reason isn't because Blades is camp fodder. It's because even as our 2nd best LB, Blades doesn't help answer the question "who is going to get to the quarterback".

We had Jason Taylor. We let him go. Now we need to replace him, but the FA market is simply too light on players who can do that.

Thankfully the draft is deep, but we're probably going to have to move up from the third round to take advantage of that. One name: Cody Brown from Connecticut (I like how they're UConn in basketball, but not in any other sport).

Ive heard good things about Brown and youre right about the depth at LB in this years draft. Its probably the deepest position in the draft at its a huge need of ours.

Personally, i hope we bring washington back at a near-vet minimum deal. If we do that, along with bringing back Daniels and maybe Wynn, then we've given us alot of flexibility in what positions we address early in the draft.

Specifically, it would afford us the opportunity to trade down and pick up extra picks, selecting players who dont "HAVE" to start immediately, but who would be expected to contribute significantly by the end of the year and start in 2010. Off the top of my head, if we went OT with a 1st, DE with a 2nd, and LB with a 3rd, we'd have a good chance of getting just that.

These guys are small?

Blades: 5'10 242
Fletcher: 5'10 245

These guys are small?

Blades: 5'10 242
Fletcher: 5'10 245

Are you being sarcastic? Ive never heard anyone question the fact that Blades and Fletcher are small. 5'10 is very short for an NFL LB. As a SLB, in passing situations, Blades is generally going to be matched up against TEs, who are almost always 6'2 or taller. And if its a running play, the SLB is going to have to try to get past the block of a 6'2 TE...

From Blades draft profile:

Size is the glaring weakness in Blades’ game. He lacks ideal height, and even though he is strong and physical, his overall lack of size will lead to him being engulfed by NFL lineman at times. He does not show the ability to drop into coverage on a consistent basis, and his height causes matchup problems.

H.B. Blades - FootballsFuture.com NFL Draft Profile (http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007/prospects/hb_blades.html)

While there are always players like London Fletcher, Darrell Green, and Santana Moss who have athletecism and intensity that helps them compensate for their lack of size, you cant fill your roster with "smurfs" or teams will exploit that. A team can get by with one short corner, one short linebacker, etc, but if they put too many small players on the field at the same time, theyre going to get abused.

These guys are small?

Blades: 5'10 242
Fletcher: 5'10 245

I guess short is the better adjective. There's no denying 5'10" 240+ is a brick sh*thouse, it's just on the shorter side for NFL LBs.

They're on the short side, sure. But both guys are built like bowling balls and hardly fit the category of small. Fletcher has proven that height is overrated.