Age a factor going into 2009
 

IMO, the Redskins are not looking too good going into next season and will need some young guys to step up.
OL-Pete Kendall is a FA and we prolly won't resign him because he will be 36...and on that note all our other starting OL will be 33/32 next season. Im not too optimistic that this group will preform well next season. As their age goes up, their skill and durability have seemed to go down.
DT-Im not sold on these guys to begin with, but on top of that, Griffin, our best DT, has been noticably getting worse year after year and will be 33 next season. Montgomery and Golston are both FAs this season...I wonder who will still be here in 09
DE-Do I really need to voice my concerns about this group? Our 9 million dollar man Jason Taylor is going to be 35, but at 34 he looked like my grandpa out there...Carter isnt producing. Our run stuffer and interior pass rusher Phillip Daniels is going to be 36 and coming off season ending surgery. We dont have any depth here.
WR-This group was very disapointing this past year to begin with. Santana Moss and Randle El will be 30, which I know normally isn't something to get worked up about. But they are both small quick speedsters, and will greatly suffer if they lose a step.
LB-Fletcher will be 34, I know he has defeyed his age up untill now, but who knows when it will catch up with him. Washington will be 32, injuries have already started to get him in recent years, Im doubtful that he will be able to produce like he used to.

The question is, how will the Redskins compensate for all these old guys? The traditional way is to use our draft picks, but since we traded all thoes away in past years, we don't have any young talent to fall back on. I know that age won't be too much of a factor for all the guys I listed. But the list is long and I feel like alot of guys will hit a wall that will negatively impact the team. And even if its not a significant decrease in skill or durability, 10 small decreases ends up to be a large impact. On the OL I feel like we will have to rely on Heyer and Reinhart...Im not confident in either, especially not Reinhart. On the DL I feel like we are obligated to resign both Golston and Montgomery and hope they both step up, which isnt very likely, but still possible. As far as WR's go, I feel like we need to pray that Thomas and Kelly pan out, and hope that this season was due to injuries. We have only one first day draft pick going into next year, so we can't rely on the draft to save us. Im just very pessamistic heading into next year. I feel like we werent good this year, and it will only get worse due to most of our key players being old.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

Age is a huge factor on the OLINE and at LB.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

start drafting guys that you expect to play. not lineman like Rinehart

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

heard coach zorn speak on whether age would be a factor in the offseason discussion and evaluation of the O line. interviewer asked if they need to take 2 steps back to take a step forward. zorn said that guys like kendall and rabach really spent alot of the offseason learning the blocking and teaching the younger players and that he does not want to replace those guys with people who it would take 2-3 years to learn to be dedicated to studying and be prepared. and that in that regard, if they did bring in new guys, the 2 steps back would be waiting 2-3 years until they learn how to prepare like a professionals. i remember reading about how rogers said this year was the first time he really studied tape and prepared and it really paid off. so maybe it does take a few years to have a veteran approach to the game.

not my opinion or thought, just thought what zorn said was relevant to this thread topic. maybe he has this impression from the lack of "preparedness" the rookies showed this year?

go skins!!

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

great, great thread...thank you for pointing this out, age will be a huge issue going into next season. IMO, the Skins might have gone 10-6/11-5 if the average age of the starters was two, maybe three years younger. Given that the young guys still have to learn the system and Snyder's impatience, I don't know that Zorn will be given a fair shake and enough time to install the system in DC

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

it should be addressed and you made a great point and it concerns me as well along with the guys who are injury prone...we need more youth....

great post..

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

We can get younger in a hurry with the release of just a few guys.

But it's not critical to get young just for the sake of getting younger. Fletcher for example is still a very capable starter and doesn't need to be replaced.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

"Sounds like people are looking for an escape goat."

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

we have to start drafting guys we think can play in the furture but dont need now. when drafting us the first rounder on a guy that can come in and play right away this year that would be a dt. use the 2nd and 3rd round on players that can play if called upon this year that would be a guard in the third round(everyone remember dockery). and 4th-7th those are players that have potential. we have been sending our draft picks to other teams for so long thats why we have this age probably now. look at NE they use all their draft picks and then some. they keep the guys that can play and get rid of the ones they dont need. look at theyre lines i'm sure 90% of there lines are people they drafted and if you have good lines then you can build around it.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

I'll be interested in seeing what the lines look like next year.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=SBXVII;516525]"Sounds like people are looking for an escape goat."[/quote]

Not it.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=markymark;519391]we have to start drafting guys we think can play in the furture but dont need now. when drafting us the first rounder on a guy that can come in and play right away this year that would be a dt. use the 2nd and 3rd round on players that can play if called upon this year that would be a guard in the third round(everyone remember dockery). and 4th-7th those are players that have potential. we have been sending our draft picks to other teams for so long thats why we have this age probably now. look at NE they use all their draft picks and then some. they keep the guys that can play and get rid of the ones they dont need. look at theyre lines i'm sure 90% of there lines are people they drafted and if you have good lines then you can build around it.[/quote]

Gee! I think that I've said that!

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

Gibbs left us in a tough spot. There's a thin line between veteran and old in the NFL. We currently sport the oldest average age among all the NFL teams. I see this team seeing some down years over the next few as we start changing players to the west coast system along with getting younger.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=Daseal;519678]Gibbs left us in a tough spot. There's a thin line between veteran and old in the NFL. We currently sport the oldest average age among all the NFL teams. I see this team seeing some down years over the next few as we start changing players to the west coast system along with getting younger.[/quote]

Gibbs was brought in to win now with a lot of holes and age on the roster (a monumental task). He did what he could with the limited amount of draft picks and mistakes made by Vinny and Danny.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

Giving up a second and sixth round pick for a 34 year old DE is not helping matters.
I'll be curious to see how long Ceratto has to right the ship?
We took several steps back this year from last year. Things could get worse.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

SFREDSKIN: It's easy to deflect blame from someone such as Gibbs, but lets call a spade a spade. First, let's look at draft picks. From all accounts, Gibbs was the one running most of the front office decisions, especially when it came to free agents and trades.

We gave up tons of draft picks during the Gibbs era, and this can go on his shoulders. Honestly, I'm fine giving up draft picks for proven players. That's just me. But some trades were just silly. Such as giving Denver Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick. Etc. Vinny isn't completely free from blame -- he went after Jason Taylor this offseason and blew a few draft picks. I still think Jason Taylor will be much improved next year, but probably not worth the price. However, how can you blame Danny? He screwed up early in his career as owner, but he's not making moves anymore. The only real power he has now is as a tie breaker vote in the draft -- which means he picks between two players that Vinny/Zorn can't agree on. Also, I don't think for a second this years draft class couldn't be an excellent one. The fact that we got such a great young player in Horton already performing and some glimpses of promise from 2/3 receivers taken in the draft is a good sign. There are many more slow developing receivers in the NFL than there are rookie sensations.

I realize you, and everyone else, on this board has a man-crush on Gibbs. But he's a huge part of why this team is so old.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=Daseal;519701]SFREDSKIN: It's easy to deflect blame from someone such as Gibbs, but lets call a spade a spade. First, let's look at draft picks. From all accounts, Gibbs was the one running most of the front office decisions, especially when it came to free agents and trades.

We gave up tons of draft picks during the Gibbs era, and this can go on his shoulders. Honestly, I'm fine giving up draft picks for proven players. That's just me. But some trades were just silly. Such as giving Denver Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick. Etc. Vinny isn't completely free from blame -- he went after Jason Taylor this offseason and blew a few draft picks. I still think Jason Taylor will be much improved next year, but probably not worth the price. However, how can you blame Danny? He screwed up early in his career as owner, but he's not making moves anymore. The only real power he has now is as a tie breaker vote in the draft -- which means he picks between two players that Vinny/Zorn can't agree on. Also, I don't think for a second this years draft class couldn't be an excellent one. The fact that we got such a great young player in Horton already performing and some glimpses of promise from 2/3 receivers taken in the draft is a good sign. There are many more slow developing receivers in the NFL than there are rookie sensations.

I realize you, and everyone else, on this board has a man-crush on Gibbs. But he's a huge part of why this team is so old.[/quote]

I believe the Portis for Bailey trade came in our favor. Bailey has missed a lot of games the last 2 years while Portis has played injured and has become and invaluable member of the team. Like I said Gibbs was brought in to win now and he inherited a mess, that's what you do when you are under the gun. The problem is that the days of being patient are gone, it's all about what have you done for me lately. Yeah, I have a man crush on Gibbs, if it wasn't for him and Beathard we would just be another shitty NFL team. He put us in the map and that's not to be forgotten, whether it was Gibbs I or II.

Redskins=Gibbs

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=SFREDSKIN;519709]I believe the Portis for Bailey trade came in our favor. Bailey has missed a lot of games the last 2 years while Portis has played injured and has become and invaluable member of the team. Like I said Gibbs was brought in to win now and he inherited a mess, that's what you do when you are under the gun. The problem is that the days of being patient are gone, it's all about what have you done for me lately. Yeah, I have a man crush on Gibbs, if it wasn't for him and Beathard we would just be another shitty NFL team. He put us in the map and that's not to be forgotten, whether it was Gibbs I or II.

Redskins=Gibbs[/quote]

Thank you SF, you beat me to it.
GibbsII might have had some warts, but he brought the team back to respectabilty. We were the laughing stock of the NFL before Gibbs came back. Eventhough Gibbs did not take us back to the Superbowl, but he turned the team around and left a playoff team for Ceratto and Zorn.
Ceratto and Zorn have since taken us back out of the playoffs.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=Defensewins;519686]Giving up a second and sixth round pick for a 34 year old DE is not helping matters.
I'll be curious to see how long Ceratto has to right the ship?
We took several steps back this year from last year. Things could get worse.[/quote]

Hell yeah!!!! Still can't believe most folks want him back at a lower price. I mean he was hurt a lot of the time and only had one really stellar game at the end when the season was effectively over for us. I mean how many times do we do this shit, by acquiring old Pro Bowlers during the twilight of their careers and give up the future by giving away draft picks. Only big FAs in recent memory that panned out for us bigtime were Johnson and now Moss. Brunell was a waste even though he did get us to the playoffs once. I like JT, but he is a few years if not less from retiring. We needed those 2 picks to rebuild an aged team.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

When you draft well everything takes care of itself. As Matty said, you don't get younger for the sake of getting younger. You bring in young guys and give them a chance in camp and throughout the year to supplant your veterans. When you draft well - like the Ravens or Steelers or Patriots - this just happens naturally.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=dmek25;516246]start drafting guys that you expect to play. not lineman like Rinehart[/quote]

I agree, they need to start drafting guys that can step in and play quickly instaed of drafting guys that need 4 years to maybe or maybe not develop into players.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=irish;519731]I agree, they need to start drafting guys that can step in and play quickly instaed of drafting guys that need 4 years to maybe or maybe not develop into players.[/quote]

Not to defend what the team has done with the rooks (not playing them) but teams like Denver (E. Royal) and Philly (D. Jackson) had to play their rooks b/c of injuries. I don't think that situation ever materialized in our team.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

We actually have the opportunity to address out lines in free agency and get younger. No not Haynesworth but quality blue collar inexpensive lineman are out there.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It is too much trouble to go and look up all of their stats for the year but I seriously believe that all of them had more catches and yards than did Kelly and Thomas added together. Then again, that would not be difficult. Let me review the facts for you:

Malcom Kelly: 5 games 3 catches 18 yards 0 TDs (Long gain = 7 yards)

Devin Thomas:16 games 15 catches 120 yards 0 TDs


Please note that Devin Thomas was active for every game and got on the field in every game. Now look at those stats again. Depressing...


Now looking at those numbers - and working on the assumption that the coaches didn't keep these players off the field in order to try to lose games - tell me which of the following is most likely correct:

[INDENT]1. Neither of these guys is not as good as the five rookie WRs I listed above. If that is the case, why did we pick these two so high? Who thought they were better WRs?


2. Both of these guys suffered from having to learn a new system. Really, which of the players I named above played in "the same system" in college? So, are these two guys "not as bright" as the five rookie WRs I listed above?[/INDENT]

No one conspired to keep Kelly or Thomas on the sidelines this year. Zorn said they both showed up for camp "unprepared"; Kelly reinjured his knee and dropped passes that hit him in the hands during the season; Thomas scored a TD on a reverse one day. That is the succinct version of their rookie seasons...


Here is another fact to consider. The FO obviously thought that improving the WR corps and the pass-catching cadre was an important thing to do between the 2007 and the 2008 season. That's why they spent the 3 top draft picks on pass-catchers. Nevertheless, neither Thomas nor Kelly could manage to replace the same 3 guys who were deemed to need upgrading at the end of 2007. It sure looked to me like Moss, Randle-El and Thrash got the snaps in 08 just like they did in 07.


Might Kelly/Thomas develop? Sure they might. But don't delude yourself into believing that all they need is an injury to a starter to show the world what stud wide receivers they are. If they had shown anything near that ability in practice - - from July through December - - they would have been on the field a lot more.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;519796]Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It is too much trouble to go and look up all of their stats for the year but I seriously believe that all of them had more catches and yards than did Kelly and Thomas added together. Then again, that would not be difficult. Let me review the facts for you:

Malcom Kelly: 5 games 3 catches 18 yards 0 TDs (Long gain = 7 yards)

Devin Thomas:16 games 15 catches 120 yards 0 TDs


Please note that Devin Thomas was active for every game and got on the field in every game. Now look at those stats again. Depressing...


Now looking at those numbers - and working on the assumption that the coaches didn't keep these players off the field in order to try to lose games - tell me which of the following is most likely correct:

[INDENT]1. Neither of these guys is not as good as the five rookie WRs I listed above. If that is the case, why did we pick these two so high? Who thought they were better WRs?


2. Both of these guys suffered from having to learn a new system. Really, which of the players I named above played in "the same system" in college? So, are these two guys "not as bright" as the five rookie WRs I listed above?[/INDENT]

No one conspired to keep Kelly or Thomas on the sidelines this year. Zorn said they both showed up for camp "unprepared"; Kelly reinjured his knee and dropped passes that hit him in the hands during the season; Thomas scored a TD on a reverse one day. That is the succinct version of their rookie seasons...


Here is another fact to consider. The FO obviously thought that improving the WR corps and the pass-catching cadre was an important thing to do between the 2007 and the 2008 season. That's why they spent the 3 top draft picks on pass-catchers. Nevertheless, neither Thomas nor Kelly could manage to replace the same 3 guys who were deemed to need upgrading at the end of 2007. It sure looked to me like Moss, Randle-El and Thrash got the snaps in 08 just like they did in 07.


Might Kelly/Thomas develop? Sure they might. But don't delude yourself into believing that all they need is an injury to a starter to show the world what stud wide receivers they are. If they had shown anything near that ability in practice - - from July through December - - they would have been on the field a lot more.[/quote]

That's the Redskins mentality when it comes to draft picks starting. They never seem to believe a rookie can just come in and start, but rather there has to be an injury are some other reason to "force" the rookie into playing.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

People who keep clamoring for Jackson and Royal, ask yourselves this? Would you have been all gung-ho in April if we drafted a 5'10" receiver when we already have two?

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=irish;519801]That's the Redskins mentality when it comes to draft picks starting. They never seem to believe a rookie can just come in and start, but rather there has to be an injury are some other reason to "force" the rookie into playing.[/quote]

I think in recent years Cooley, Rogers, Taylor, Landry all disproved that, didn't they? Maybe we're just not drafting players who are better than those they've been drafted to replace.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;519796]Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.[/quote]

It's not the only reason, but it is a major reason why these guys got to play. You don't think that if ARE and Moss had gone down with injuries, the team would have been forced to play at least Thomas? Well actually, the way our team is they would have traded picks for a WR.

We have two good examples here in our team of rookie players who were thrown into starting lineups b/c of injuries: Horton and Heyer. Horton showed flashes of being a good player during the preseason, but had Reed Doughty played a bit better and/or if he had not gotten injured, Horton would not have played much at all. The same with Horton, who was thrown into the lineup due to injuries to Jensen and Samuels

My point is that our situation in Washington was different. If you think that we needed some good play out rookie receivers right away, then the team should have gone after an experienced receiver in free agency instead of drafting them. The rooks are a hit or miss, you are only going to get a few Desean Jacksons or Eddie Royals who contribute a lot during their rookie year. On the other hand you are going to get a whole bunch of rooks that do not contribute much and need to develop.

Once again, I don't disagree with the rookies' lack of playing time, but I don't think they were in a situation as Royal or Jackson were to be forced to play more.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

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.


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.

Re: Age a factor going into 2009
 

You can criticize the Fred Davis pick and even the Kelly pick (for attitude and health issues respectively, both of which ended up severely hurting their rookie seasons) but D. Thomas was by far the consensus number one receiver going into the draft. Indeed, most pundits thought it was wacky that St. Louis took Avery at 33 over Thomas. Kudos to them for making a great call, but you can't fault the skins for filling a need and taking the consensus number one player at his position who had slipped all the way to 34.

Moreover, I don't have a great memory but I don't remember a lot of people last year lamenting us taking Thomas over Eddie Royal on draft day.

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.