Re: Cooley put on IR
 

He could still kick Romos ass

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Mattyk;852441]Good luck with that happening.[/quote]

If we can't get a 3rd rounder for him then I would opt to keep him. No sense in letting him walk without a decent compensation similar to what the Bears got for Greg Olsen. Cooley can still be productive for 3 to 4 more years.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Sometimes injuries can be a blessing in disguise for a team... Alot of player step in and step up......look at the Chiefs.... Had bad injuries to their first team now rattled off 3 straight wins.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

cooley will be back. mark it down. too many peoples favorite redskin, and the revenue he brings in is probably the highest on the team when it comes down to individual players. He will take a slight pay cut, but we will keep him.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

And the hits just keep on coming, but under a pile of enormous setbacks lie great opportunities.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=Beemnseven;852444]As optimistic as I was at the beginning, for me it's hard not to see this thing going into a tailspin. We're last in the NFC in turnover ratio, 4th last in the league -- that's the only thing that's correctable. Otherwise, we have all the classic problems: Mediocre QB, no gamebreakers on offense. Hell, Moss was our biggest threat and even he hasn't been superstar material lately. Best you can say for Gaffney and Stallworth is that they're competent.

And apparently, asking young WRs like Paul, Hankerson, and Austin to step up and perform is a herculean task; 2-3 year learning curve rule for wideouts and all. Why does it always seem so hard for the Redskins to get some dynamic playmakers?[/quote]
Building a football team is very much like building a portfolio, and most people don't know jack shit on how to do either, Vinny Cerrato and Dan Snyder included.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;852446]Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.[/quote]

We need a Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson type guy that opens up everything for the entire offense. That's what's been missing around here. When was the last time we had a wr w/ double digit TD's??

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

We signed Dominique Byrd and Jonathan Compas.

Hopefully Compas can guide Helu to the end zone.

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskinsmoves]Injury-riddled Redskins sign TE Byrd, OL Compas - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;852446]Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.[/quote]

Yep, this team has been so chronically broken that it struggles to do the basics required to be consistently decent, its unrealistic to expect them to be dynamic.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;852450]Sometimes injuries can be a blessing in disguise for a team... Alot of player step in and step up......look at the Chiefs.... Had bad injuries to their first team now rattled off 3 straight wins.[/quote]

Your 100% right. Paulson stepped in on Sun. and played pretty awesome. He stepped up and made some good catches.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;852446]Probably because we haven't focused on having a fundamentally sound team for the last decade. Playmakers are great, and I agree that we need to find one, two, or even 3, BUT, when our team fails at the simple things of pass protection, run blocking, or defensive pressure, the playmakers we have brought in (Moss, Portis, etc) generally fail. In most cases you have to have a sound team before you can have an explosive team. I believe we are doing better at building a sound team, admittedly- the last two weeks seem to argue against that.[/quote]We need at least 6-7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. It is impossible to get 14 starting playmakers and depth to go along with it using the strategy Snyder, Gibbs, Vinny, and even Shanahan year 1 tried to follow. There just isn't enough cap room and roster room left to pull it off. A sound team is a team full of playmakers.

And I'm not kidding about 7 playmakers. OLB, OLB, NT, Shutdown CB, Stud MLB, stud safety for our D. We have 4 of those positions filled on D, but only 3 long-term as Fletch is close to retirement. Franchise QB, stud RB, stud WR, stud TE, stud LT, a couple other stud OL are needed for our O. No one on our O has proven that they've reach that level of greatness, but at least we have some prospects that might help long-term in Trent, Helu, and Davis.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=SBXVII;852396]Or we could skip Davis and move right on to Paulson who did an admirable job catching passes for 1st downs when others were dropping passes.[/quote]

Bahaha, yea let's see how that works......

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;852480]Green Bay is 7-0 and[B] I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year:[/B] Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.[/quote]

Yeah but that have one GREAT player in Rogers and he plays the most important position on the field.

Re: Cooley put on IR
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;852480]Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.

They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).

My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.[/quote]

Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson would start on many teams. But even so, I'm operating under a definition than you are.

You do not need to be a Pro Bowler to be a playmaker. Justin Smith of San Fran is a playmaker in my eyes, even if he'll never sniff the Pro Bowl. What are merely "good players" to you [I]are[/I] playmakers to me. The impact on the game the player provides is what makes him a playmaker or not.