Would Dunta Robinson & Darren Sproles be 'business as usual'?

So news the past couple of days out of Houston and San Diego that Dunta Robinson and Darren Sproles will be unrestricted free agents because their teams will not franchise/tender them. They both arguably fit roles that we need to either fill or improve in 2010. Since they are both 'big name players' and are not offensive linemen, would you feel the signing of one or both would reflect 'business as usual' or would they just be clear upgrades to Rogers and Cartwright?

Of course, signing them does not exclude us from addressing OL, LB, etc. so please spare the 'I'd rather spend money elsewhere' lack of logic.

Not sure either would be high priority type of signings. Yes we could use help at RB but a 3rd down back really isn't what I have in mind. Tender Rogers and I think we're ok at CB.

I agree, however if we don't think we will be able to resign Rogers to a long-term contract before he becomes a free agent, we might as well make a play for Robinson.

No, nothing they do would be business as usual to me. If Allen/Shanni sign a high priced free agent I will believe that it's because they think it is in the best long term interest of the Redskins. We have to give them a clean slate...they can not be expected to make decisions just to be different then what Snyderatto would have done.

No, nothing they do would be business as usual to me. If Allen/Shanni sign a high priced free agent I will believe that it's because they think it is in the best long term interest of the Redskins. We have to give them a clean slate...they can not be expected to make decisions just to be different then what Snyderatto would have done.

Totally agree.

No matter what happens, trades, free agents, etc., we're on a clean slate now and have to forget about the Vinny era.

I know some will want to take the first opportunity to say Snyder is still making decisions, but I'm not buying that crap.

San Diego's backfield is gone. LT, Michael Turner, Sproles, Neal...they'll be drafting a RB first I assume.

Not sure either would be high priority type of signings. Yes we could use help at RB but a 3rd down back really isn't what I have in mind. Tender Rogers and I think we're ok at CB.

I'd agree that they are not 'high priority' signings but if they represent upgrades to what we have, would you be opposed to them?

I'd be more enthused about a Sproles signing because he represents something we've lacked for more than a decade-explosiveness in the backfield and the return game.

As much as I don't care for Rogers, I'm not opposed to him returning on a tender.

Well I think Shanahan believes we might already have our Sproles in Anthony Alridge. And as for Dunta Robinson, I look at it like this-I think we sign him only if we find a solid trade partner for Rogers (potentially for another pick). So now we've added a solid DB and added a draft pick with which to address other needs. Now, if we just add Robinson and Sproles to the mix and don't do anything else with what we currently have..then yeah that wouldn't be so good.

For the record, I'd rather break the bank on Dansby than Robinson

San Diego might have a hard time if they lose both Sproles and LT in the same offseason. They might become just like the 2009 Colts team -- pass every down..

Well I think Shanahan believes we might already have our Sproles in Anthony Alridge. And as for Dunta Robinson, I look at it like this-I think we sign him only if we find a solid trade partner for Rogers (potentially for another pick). So now we've added a solid DB and added a draft pick with which to address other needs. Now, if we just add Robinson and Sproles to the mix and don't do anything else with what we currently have..then yeah that wouldn't be so good.

For the record, I'd rather break the bank on Dansby than Robinson

I am in favor of keeping Rogers but that would really make a lot of sense if they could add a pick and replace Rogers with Robinson. That would be a home run.