Cooley put on IR

[Hog1]

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Playmakers=/=superstars.

Art Monk. Superstar? maybe. Playmaker? **** yeah.
The Hogs. Superstar? No. Playmakers? **** yeah
Manley and Mann. Superstars? maybe. Playmakers? **** yeah
Riggo. Superstar? Maybe. Playmaker? **** yeah.
Dave Butz. Superstar? No. Playmaker? **** yeah.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Well, then how do we explain the last three years?

[Mechanix544]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, then how do we explain the last three years?

I guess you are forgetting that he had 77 receptions for almost 900 yards last year, and that was the year he really picked up on his blocking.

All that while giving Fred Davis some playing time, cause you all know we didnt run any two TE sets last year, lol.

In short, he is a valuable commodity, definitely worth a 3rd rounder to some team, possibly a 3rd and 4th. I still think we should keep him though.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

I guess you are forgetting that he had 77 receptions for almost 900 yards last year, and that was the year he really picked up on his blocking.

All that while giving Fred Davis some playing time, cause you all know we didnt run any two TE sets last year, lol.

In short, he is a valuable commodity, definitely worth a 3rd rounder to some team, possibly a 3rd and 4th. I still think we should keep him though.

Chris Cooley is not that valuable, not with the TE market being flooded with an influx of athletic TEs that can "do everything". Over 20 teams have an athletic TE worth their salt.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.

Fletcher is more than solid. He's the MVP or co-MVP of the defense and would be for many other teams. Rak and Landry are debatable for now, but there frequent flashes from them.

[CrustyRedskin]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Different, era. Different coachin style.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Green Bay has six playmakers: Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Matthews, Raji and Woodson. Personally, I don't think we have a single playmaker, we only have a few solid players (Rak, Landry, and Fletch), but none of them on offense. This team lacks talent period.

Looking at those 6:
Rodgers - 1st round (24th overall) 2005 (not going there carlos/campbell)
Jennings - 2nd round (52nd overall) 2006 (we got McIntosh in the 2nd)
Finley - 3rd round (91st overall) 2008 (we got Davis in the 2nd, and he sat behind Cooley under Zorn)
Matthews - 1st round(26th overall) 2009 (we got Orakpo at 13)
Raji -1st round (9th overall) 2009
Woodson -8yr starter picked up in 2006

my point is, these playmakers weren't playmakers year one, the team was built, and it took time to get the system in place, and the qb groomed enough that the team is where it is today. We all know that this team has been to the bottom and back, but in building we have to give the young players a chance before we just look at them and dismiss them. It's hard, especially at WR, because we've seen so many flame out here, but I want to believe that out of our current young group 1, 2 or 3 will develop into a playmaker status. I have high hopes for Austin, Paul, and medium hopes for AA and Hankerson. It would be nice to see some faith made into reality.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

One of the most important facets of a "fundamentally sound team" are players that can score points. I would argue that all of the things you mentioned, pass pro, run blocking, and defensive pressure, have improved. Granted, the running game is sometimes there, and sometimes it isn't. But when I talk about "playmakers" I'm referring specifically to wideouts who can get separation, run precise routes, and have the speed and elusiveness to find the endzone.

As I said, the only player we have that remotely fits this description has been Santana Moss and even he hasn't been there when we've needed a score most. Fred Davis comes after that, but now all opposing defenses have to do is focus in on him and our offense is effectively grounded.

What bugs me is this idea that you can't rely on young receivers to fill these needs because the learning curve takes so long to go from college to the pros. I'm not sure I buy that. Nonetheless, it's a problem and year after year this franchise doesn't have an answer for it.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Hog1

The Skins won a few SB's with arguably NO superstars.......

Disagree totally. The Hogs are probably the most famous offensive line in league history. In their day, 'The Posse' was among the best trio of receivers in the league. Mann and Manley, and Darrell Green and Martin Mayhew, formed defensive tandems that were consistently at or near the top season after season.

Now, were they *Superstars* -- depends on how you define that. But they absolutely were playmakers.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

I guess you are forgetting that he had 77 receptions for almost 900 yards last year, and that was the year he really picked up on his blocking. All that while giving Fred Davis some playing time, cause you all know we didnt run any two TE sets last year, lol.

In short, he is a valuable commodity, definitely worth a 3rd rounder to some team, possibly a 3rd and 4th. I still think we should keep him though.

I grew negative on Cooley before most people did. In the beginning he was a difference maker -- a decent touchdown threat. But after a while, defenses started to figure him out and his scoring ability fell off the map at a time when we needed it most.

Hell of a possession receiver, no doubt, but not a scoring threat. I'd be stunned if we get a 3rd rounder for him.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

You think we're lacking solid players?

[SirClintonPortis]

Playmakers are usually the most technically sound players of their position. Ed Reed probably studies a ton of film to diagnose the play and then make his interceptions. Darelle Revis isn't a shutdown corner without his positioning and other coverage skills. Peyton Manning can diagnose defenses better than most other QBs.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

One of the most important facets of a "fundamentally sound team" are players that can score points. I would argue that all of the things you mentioned, pass pro, run blocking, and defensive pressure, have improved. Granted, the running game is sometimes there, and sometimes it isn't. But when I talk about "playmakers" I'm referring specifically to wideouts who can get separation, run precise routes, and have the speed and elusiveness to find the endzone.

As I said, the only player we have that remotely fits this description has been Santana Moss and even he hasn't been there when we've needed a score most. Fred Davis comes after that, but now all opposing defenses have to do is focus in on him and our offense is effectively grounded.

What bugs me is this idea that you can't rely on young receivers to fill these needs because the learning curve takes so long to go from college to the pros. I'm not sure I buy that. Nonetheless, it's a problem and year after year this franchise doesn't have an answer for it.

The bolded point is THE point. Playmakers are great but only if an offense, or defense, can - in all other facets- at least keep an opposing teams on an even keel. Much like we hoped RK would allow Orakpo more freedom to blitz. Playmakers still, generally, need a solid team in order for their abilities to shine through, otherwise opponents zero in, and can prevent them from making plays.