Pasta Belly's Weekly Redskin Commentary

• No matter how the Laveranues Coles situation plays out in Washington -- whether he is released, traded or remains with the Redskins in 2005 (the least likely scenario) -- the very fact the team is prepared to dump its best wide receiver is further indication of how little owner Dan Snyder understands the significance of continuity. In each of the past two seasons, Snyder declared that the Redskins roster was stable, and that it would be the club's composition for at least the ensuing three seasons. But every time his club fails to reach the playoffs, Snyder panics and the turnover process begins anew. Make no mistake: Snyder deserves credit for his commitment to fielding a championship team. He definitely puts his money where his mouth is and, unlike many of his fraternity brothers in the NFL ownership clique, isn't satisfied with mediocrity or the league's healthiest financial bottom line. But football is a game in which a team can't afford to simply plow things under every season and start over in the rebuilding process. Just two years ago, the Redskins invested a $13 million signing bonus in Coles and sent the New York Jets a first-round draft choice as compensation for signing the fleet wideout as a restricted free agent. Common sense and, more important, football sense dictates that you provide those investments an opportunity to reap dividends. So what if Coles is unhappy with the Joe Gibbs-designed offense, a passing game that rarely goes vertical? The guy is under contract, and you make him play. The rationale that you don't want an unhappy player in the locker room, especially in the case of Coles, is vastly overrated. Coles is a player, a guy who will show up every Sunday, even when he isn't getting the ball enough. Word is that the football people in Washington, including Gibbs, aren't thrilled with Snyder's hair-trigger decision to jettison Coles, and, if that's the case, no one can blame them. Snyder operates under the theory that the grass is always greener, that you make yourself better by bringing in a busload of new players every spring, that free agency is his personal shopping mall. In the NFL, though, the franchises that most often succeed over the long term are the ones that give their own grass a little time to mature.

Hey Pasta Belly, I have 2 words for ya......















You're right. :frusty:

Yup, that's exactly what I would have said unfortunately and how, in a perfect world, a team should operate.

Im sorry - I can't blame this on Snyder. This is a decesion Coles made based on the offense he's seen, played in, and apparently not enjoyed. He looks for any excuse to rip on Snyder. What do you suggest Lenny? Keeping him here having him maybe not even play at 100%? It's not SNYDERS fault!

Im sorry - I can't blame this on Snyder. This is a decesion Coles made based on the offense he's seen, played in, and apparently not enjoyed. He looks for any excuse to rip on Snyder. What do you suggest Lenny? Keeping him here having him maybe not even play at 100%? It's not SNYDERS fault!

I agree. If theres anyone who we should blame is Gibbs. But bottom line is, why keep a guy who doesn't want to play for you.

Im sorry - I can't blame this on Snyder. This is a decesion Coles made based on the offense he's seen, played in, and apparently not enjoyed. He looks for any excuse to rip on Snyder. What do you suggest Lenny? Keeping him here having him maybe not even play at 100%? It's not SNYDERS fault!


Pastabelli hates Snyder and finds any reason to vent. Coles wants out for selfish (yet understandable) reasons. He wants the numbers and in Gibbs offense last year he didn't get them.

Numbers or W's -- he'd accept both forms!

Oh yeah by the way.


F**K Pastabelly!

I'm not saying it's Snyder's fault. I'm AM however saying that I DO think that if Coles were to somehow end up with the Redskins in '05 that he would play and play his best. (I would hope)

I don't think it was Snyder's decision to jettison Coles. Gibbs makes all the calls when it comes to the roster.

Im sorry - I can't blame this on Snyder. This is a decesion Coles made based on the offense he's seen, played in, and apparently not enjoyed. He looks for any excuse to rip on Snyder. What do you suggest Lenny? Keeping him here having him maybe not even play at 100%? It's not SNYDERS fault!

First, anyone in here enjoy seeing the offense last year? It was tough to watch so it had to be even tougher to be a part of, so I don't blame Coles for being frustrated.

If we're going to start dumping everyone who's unhappy in the locker room, then who's going to be the next malcontent? Nothing that has happened so far is irreparable, Coles is going to play hard as heck no matter what jersey he's wearing or offense he's running, not to mention that he has an f'ng point! 10.6 yds per catch, not good enough for our top guy which is what SNYDER designated Coles by giving up a 1st round pick for him along with that $13 million dollar signing bonus. Two years and two coaches later we're supposed to change midstream again and hope that Moss is the answer?

No!! SNYDER came out of his mouth and said that we would be keeping this core group of guys together for at least 3 years. Now Coles is suddenly not one of the core guys because he is frustrated with how he is being mis-used?

I hate to admit it, but Pastabelly is right. This is not the continuity that we were promised, this does not put us closer to winning, this trade or cut would mean that all the talk about continuity was just talk. It's the same thing we've seen every year, instead of keeping the guys together so that they can grow better together, let's go out and get someone new so that we can have yet another offseason of getting to know each other.

I realize our wideouts didn't have the best of years this year, but if we drop our top two guys does that really improve our team?