Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

I think the OLine and DLine is primarily where the age issue can become problematic, simply because there is more to replace. All on the OLine are now over, what 31-32? Daniels is old on the defense. Grif is getting up there plus not as durable. Sure we have guys like Springs and Fletcher. They are legit age issues, but can be resolved in one FA signing or one draft. Lines take time to rebuild. Unfortunately, both lines are aging at the same time, yet we only have 4 draft picks. Not real good planning.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

Thing is LB is a big issue also with Fletcher and Washington especially. Not sure Blades and McIntosh are prime time either.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;520003]Thing is LB is a big issue also with Fletcher and Washington especially. Not sure Blades and McIntosh are prime time either.[/quote]

Like everyone else on the roster, they are ok but we have a serious lack of elite players at any position. Only Landry, Sellers, Samuels, Portis and Cooley can arguably be talked about at top 5 at their position in the league and they'd all be at 4 or 5.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;519937]Ruhskins:


You seem to cling to the idea that the starting tandem of Moss, Randle-El and Thrash is something that strikes fear in the hearts of defensive coordinators around the NFL. Sadly, it does not.

Sure, if one of the starters had gone on IR, the "kiddies" would have played more. But the fact that the "kiddies" could not/did not beat out anyone on a mediocre batch of WRs says that they didn't show very much in practice. And we do know - - the numbers don't lie in this circumstance - - that when they did get on the field it was about the same as having the offense play with 10 men.

Imagine for a moment that the Redskins signed ONE WR as a free agent who had caught 18 passes last year for 138 yards and no TDs. Who would think that was a "prize catch"? Well ... that is what the Redskins got from BOTH of their first day draft picks at WR. Not one reciever - - BOTH of them added together.

Rookie WRs are hit and miss - - as can be said of many other positions too. But I gave you examples of 5 rookie WRs in the NFL this year all of whom did better than Thomas and Kelly added together. Some started all year; some started part of the year; some were used in lots of special offensive packages. But all five contributred individually more to their teams than both of these guys contributed to the Redskins.

So, who in the scouting department/draft organizing department/draft day war room passed on Desean Jackson, Donnie Avery, Eddie Royal, Jordy Nelson and Davone Best thinking that Thomas and Kelly were higher on the list? I don't have an office at Redskins Park so I don't know the answer to that, but whoever it was should not have gotten a Christmas bonus this year.[/quote]

I think we're missing each other's points or something. First, I don't think Moss, ARE, and Thrash are striking fear in NFL defenses. I think you are stating that whoever scouted Thomas and Kelly did a terrible job in passing up all of these WRs (Royal, Jackson, Jordy, etc.). I personally think we should not have drafted any WRs...or maybe just one to build up for the future. During the offseason, I was making the point that a FA wideout would help the team right away, and that a rookie wideout would take a year or two to develop. Now, I'll admit now that I was wrong in thinking that this team was one good WR away from being a good team...turns out that it was that the issue was not among wideouts, but in the offensive line.

You make the argument that we should have gone after the likes of Eddie Royal or Desean Jackson...I don't think those players would have been successful here or as successful as they have been in their teams. I do think part of it has to do with getting opportunities through injuries, but I think our team has other issues in the offense, that won't be fixed with just good WR play.

Oh well, could've, would've, should've...there's no point in pondering about the past...hopefully in this following offseason the team gets it right and fix their lines.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;519937]Smootsmack:

I do not now - nor would I last Spring - have worried even a little bit about the height of any receiver that the Skins drafted. There are good big receivers and there are good small recievers. AND there are big receivers who aren't worth the space they take up.

Darnarian McCants? Big guy. Used to be here. Glad he's gone

Anthony Mix? Big guy. Used to be here. Which starting NFL line-up did he make?

What was his real name now - I can't recall - but people used to call him 50/50 when he was here...? Rod Something or other. Where's he now?

Productive wide receivers are guys who get open and who catch the ball when it is thrown to them such that they can get their hands on it without resorting to circus-like acrobatics. It really doesn't matter how big they are.

But if BIG is essential, then why not Jordy Nelson as a big receiver? Maybe he's not AS big as Malcom Kelly, but he played and caught the ball this year (33 catches/366 yards/2 TDs). Malcom Kelly caught THREE passes all year. Big or small or medium sized makes no difference; a receiver who catches THREE passes for the season is not much of a return for a 1st day draft pick.[/quote]

I'm talking about the fans' reactions. Hindsight is a beautiful thing

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

Age has been a problem for us for years. Last year it was very clear on the OL.
But i dont see it on a CRUCIAL level. We should be OK this year as far as age is concerned if we can address some problems in the Offseason.