Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[MTK]

These guys are small?

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

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

[MTK]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

True, but the SLB in particular has to match up against TEs in receiving situations. Blades against Witten, for example, is a mismatch in the Cowboys' favor. The ball just goes up top.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

True, but the SLB in particular has to match up against TEs in receiving situations. Blades against Witten, for example, is a mismatch in the Cowboys' favor. The ball just goes up top.

Exactly. Now MLB is another matter entirely. Hopefully, we can keep Blades here long enough that he can replace Fletcher when he retires.I love the intensity Blades brings to the game and, as you guys have mentioned, he's a heavy hitter.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Exactly. Now MLB is another matter entirely. Hopefully, we can keep Blades here long enough that he can replace Fletcher when he retires.I love the intensity Blades brings to the game and, as you guys have mentioned, he's a heavy hitter.

I've admitted that having two shorter linebackers can create a weakness against the run that becomes relatively easy to scheme against, but the flip side of the coin is the simple one: if they're good, play 'em.

Our best two LBs are Blades and Fletcher, and even though neither is really a "Blache" linebacker, they are our best players there and should lead our team in PT for LBs this season.

BTW, there's one name on the FA market that I totally missed who could make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

[Hamoskinz]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

...make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

He played for KC as a DE. Isn't he old (+30yrs) or something? I like his game, good outside speed and is worth a look IMO. I don't know if he can play OLB though?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've admitted that having two shorter linebackers can create a weakness against the run that becomes relatively easy to scheme against, but the flip side of the coin is the simple one: if they're good, play 'em.

Our best two LBs are Blades and Fletcher, and even though neither is really a "Blache" linebacker, they are our best players there and should lead our team in PT for LBs this season.

BTW, there's one name on the FA market that I totally missed who could make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

GT per Blades doesn't switching him to WLB (for the time being) help minimize his shortness since he'll probably get caught in coverage less often? I know we talked about Marcus switching prior to his departure to hide his coverage issues, and because Rocky is probably our best coverage LB anyway, so why not make the same switch if Blades is set to start?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've admitted that having two shorter linebackers can create a weakness against the run that becomes relatively easy to scheme against, but the flip side of the coin is the simple one: if they're good, play 'em.

Our best two LBs are Blades and Fletcher, and even though neither is really a "Blache" linebacker, they are our best players there and should lead our team in PT for LBs this season.

BTW, there's one name on the FA market that I totally missed who could make a nice OLB: Kalimba Edwards. A bit of a bust at DE, but he's a pass rusher who isn't dissimilar to what we lost with Jason Taylor.

i agree with your philosophy of playing our best 2 guys, but, from my perspective, we need to get better linebackers instead of just playing fletch and blades because theyre all we got... not familiar with edwards. if hes cheap, why not give him a shot to compete for a spot - sign me up.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

GT per Blades doesn't switching him to WLB (for the time being) help minimize his shortness since he'll probably get caught in coverage less often? I know we talked about Marcus switching prior to his departure to hide his coverage issues, and because Rocky is probably our best coverage LB anyway, so why not make the same switch if Blades is set to start?

The reason the Will is a more difficult position than either the Mike or the Sam, at least as I understand NFL defenses, is that the Will is many times more likely to find himself caught in space against a receiver.

Since the Sam always goes to the tight end side, the Will is always responsible for the slant to the isolated receiver, as well as slow developing plays out of the backfield. Rocky was a disaster in this role, for when he was able to diagnose the plays, he tended to not be fast enough to make a difference.

His shortness won't necessarily play better at any position (although you are right about the TE matchup, but remember that in pretty much any scheme except cover two, the strong safety tends to line up to the TE side as well [hense: 'strong'], mitigating the role of the SLB even further).

Grilliams and Blache both are big fans of simplifing the roles of the OLBs against the run. They share the same philosophy: they'd rather see the OLBs take out the lead blocker and open up a clean lane for the MLB to make the play than have the OLB take the blocker head on and try to beat him one on one. It's one of the biggest reasons for Fletcher's success here, I think.

I hope that answered your question. It probably didn't, but maybe there was something valuable in there anyway.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hamoskinz

He played for KC as a DE. Isn't he old (+30yrs) or something? I like his game, good outside speed and is worth a look IMO. I don't know if he can play OLB though?

He's 29 on opening day.

[GTripp0012]

I should really diagram this defensive crap, because they say a picture is worth 1,000 words. And 1,000 words is worth an hour and a half.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I should really diagram this defensive crap, because they say a picture is worth 1,000 words. And 1,000 words is worth an hour and a half.

I actually think you gave a very clear explaination of the point. You did pique my curiosity though: Do you think McIntosh is a starting-caliber LB?