Offensive line deemed the biggest concern

[fleetus]

From the redskins insider Blog

Several people told us that the offensive line was the greatest area of concern during the first series of meetings. Offensive line Coach Joe Bugel, criticized privately by some in the organization for being too loyal to veterans in the past, was brutally honest during the line review, sources said, particularly about how the line fell apart in the second half of the season.

There was a consensus among those in attendance that the team needs to upgrade at both guard spots and right tackle, though most sources doubted there will any kind of substantial free-agent budget to do that, and figure most of the present cast will be back.

Third-round pick Chad Rinehart is not seen as a capable player at this point, according to numerous sources involved in the meeting, and is not projected as being anywhere close to able to replace Pete Kendall or Randy Thomas at guard. Many coaches, including Bugel, worry about his confidence and ability, sources said. He is not being counted on to produce much in 2009, and if he did it would be a surprising development. Similarly, Stephon Heyer is not viewed as a starter; he's okay for depth purposes but with Jon Jansen no longer deemed a starter, either, they need to do something at right tackle (I still expect them to draft a tackle with their first pick).

Kendall could not practice on Wednesdays all season because of his arthritic knees and, in addition, is in his mid-30s. Given the team's cap predicament, its needs and the internal expectation that they will not be big spenders, sources said they expect the team to try to re-sign Kendall on the cheap. Thomas's health and decreasing athleticism are a big issue as well, but, like Jansen, his contract makes it more expensive to cut him than to keep him, so he will be back. Look for the team to find a "value" guard in free agency to replace Jason Fabini and push for a starting job. Beyond that, I'm not sure they do a whole lot here.

Wow, I appreciate the direct honesty of these evaluations, but this paints a somewhat grim picture for next season. So, if we can't afford to go after a top tier offensive lineman in free agency, then we start next season with Kendall and his arthritic knees at LG, Thomas and his injuries returning at RG, a new veteran backup lineman to take Fabini's place on the bench and hopefully a rookie RT to compete with Jansen and Heyer.

Mark my words, this will be a true test of what Cerrato can do. I have been a supporter of his, often reminding people that his reign as VP of Football just started in 08. But after next season, we will have a report card on him based on the development of D. Thomas, M. Kelly, F. Davis, Rinehart, Horton, Tryon and Brennan. Then add to that the 2009 evaluation of how he manages to transition this old offensive line with some free agents and draft picks in 09 and we will have a much clearer picture of whether he can do the job well.

[Trample the Elderly]

It's there for everyone to see. I wonder why Vinny was so suprised? It's going to take at least two drafts to rebuild both lines. We'll have to wait and see what happens. It is good to know that there are problems and that they're willing to address them.

[brad7686]

From the redskins insider Blog

Several people told us that the offensive line was the greatest area of concern during the first series of meetings. Offensive line Coach Joe Bugel, criticized privately by some in the organization for being too loyal to veterans in the past, was brutally honest during the line review, sources said, particularly about how the line fell apart in the second half of the season.

There was a consensus among those in attendance that the team needs to upgrade at both guard spots and right tackle, though most sources doubted there will any kind of substantial free-agent budget to do that, and figure most of the present cast will be back.

Third-round pick Chad Rinehart is not seen as a capable player at this point, according to numerous sources involved in the meeting, and is not projected as being anywhere close to able to replace Pete Kendall or Randy Thomas at guard. Many coaches, including Bugel, worry about his confidence and ability, sources said. He is not being counted on to produce much in 2009, and if he did it would be a surprising development. Similarly, Stephon Heyer is not viewed as a starter; he's okay for depth purposes but with Jon Jansen no longer deemed a starter, either, they need to do something at right tackle (I still expect them to draft a tackle with their first pick).

Kendall could not practice on Wednesdays all season because of his arthritic knees and, in addition, is in his mid-30s. Given the team's cap predicament, its needs and the internal expectation that they will not be big spenders, sources said they expect the team to try to re-sign Kendall on the cheap. Thomas's health and decreasing athleticism are a big issue as well, but, like Jansen, his contract makes it more expensive to cut him than to keep him, so he will be back. Look for the team to find a "value" guard in free agency to replace Jason Fabini and push for a starting job. Beyond that, I'm not sure they do a whole lot here.

Wow, I appreciate the direct honesty of these evaluations, but this paints a somewhat grim picture for next season. So, if we can't afford to go after a top tier offensive lineman in free agency, then we start next season with Kendall and his arthritic knees at LG, Thomas and his injuries returning at RG, a new veteran backup lineman to take Fabini's place on the bench and hopefully a rookie RT to compete with Jansen and Heyer.

Mark my words, this will be a true test of what Cerrato can do. I have been a supporter of his, often reminding people that his reign as VP of Football just started in 08. But after next season, we will have a report card on him based on the development of D. Thomas, M. Kelly, F. Davis, Rinehart, Horton, Tryon and Brennan. Then add to that the 2009 evaluation of how he manages to transition this old offensive line with some free agents and draft picks in 09 and we will have a much clearer picture of whether he can do the job well.

If they draft a RT in the first round like they should, I would really hope he is not "competing with Jansen and Heyer for a starting spot." I'm not sure either one of them belongs in the league at this point. Also, they need to address guard in some form, and Rinehart needs to man up.

[Wahoo McDaniels]

Anybody else notice during Belichek's film study prior to the Super Bowl that he showed multiple examples of what not to do vs. the Steelers involving the Redskins game. One play that sticks out was Jansen getting beat clean off the line without getting a hand on Woodley. At that point I changed my mind that this might be our biggest priority.

Belichek noted that the Skins coaches had the perfect blocking scheme called but the players (Jansen and Cartwright) failed to execute the play.

Maybe a tackle is the biggest need. I'll say this...if we pick another Receiver, we're on our way to becoming the Detroit Lions who pick 4 WR's in a row...and we know how that turned out.

[SkinsJock]

No worries - We will not be selecting a WR with our first pick.

The good news would be that we would have someone other than Cerrato running the personnel department a short time later

[SkinsFreak]

Anybody else notice during Belichek's film study prior to the Super Bowl that he showed multiple examples of what not to do vs. the Steelers involving the Redskins game. One play that sticks out was Jansen getting beat clean off the line without getting a hand on Woodley. At that point I changed my mind that this might be our biggest priority.

Belichek noted that the Skins coaches had the perfect blocking scheme called but the players (Jansen and Cartwright) failed to execute the play.

I absolutely agree and something I think some fans refuse to recognize. The o-line fails to execute, but the coach and the QB get the blame.

[fleetus]

I think in some ways this could be a good situation, depending on how it is handled by the FO. In past years we've always looked to band-aid our problems with big free agent splashes. You don't see Pittsburgh and New England going after very many top tier free agents. they build through the draft and when they do sign a free agent, it is a lesser known guy like Ryan Clark. Besides Randy Moss, who hasn't contributed to ANY of the Patriot SB wins, name a top tier free agent that New England has signed?

So if we stick to this plan of not going after a top tier free agent, it will force Cerrato to really look for a few free agent players who have some undiscovered talents. Maybe they are stuck on a bad team like Detroit or Oakland and will blossom when surrounded by good teammates. Maybe they are backing up a star. Maybe their team hired a new coach in past two years who runs a totally different scheme that doesn't showcase their talents. We need to excel at finding these kinds of players, like Beathard and Gibbs did in the 80's. Good offensive lineman and linebackers can be found for bargains if you look hard enough. Then we draft an offensive lineman, maybe trade a player or two away to add a middle round draft choice. It would be nice to see the redskins return to the ways that made them such a beloved team during the 80's. Hard work, no prima donna's, solid fundamental football. No whiners or slackers. Lots of role players. You don't get that way by throwing wads of cash at everyone else's overpriced stars. You get that way by placing more value on the solid citizen role players who come to work and play hard. You build through the draft and by finding lower tier free agents who are truly hungry to prove how good they are.

[SkinsFreak]

name a top tier free agent that New England has signed?

Randy Moss
Junior Seau
Wes Welker
Adalius Thomas
Rodney Harrison
LaMont Jordan
Tank Williams
Kyle Brady
Eddie Jackson
Donte' Stallworth
Kelley Washington
Jabar Gaffney
Martin Gramatica
Reche Caldwell
Todd Sauerbrun
Doug Flutie
David Terrell
Chad Morton
Josh Miller
Keith Traylor

Certainly not all "top tier" players, but it's a misconception that the Pat's don't sign free agents, and the list is even longer. Nevertheless, I agree the FO has an opportunity here and this could be a good situation for the Skins.

[fleetus]

Wow, you're really stretching the definition of top tier

Maybe i need to spell it out, for those not following the intent of the argument. High priced free agents? or free agents that any other team bid on? Not many on your list were paid near the other top players at their position. In fact, other than Moss, who i already mentioned has not helped them win any SB's, the ONLY guy who could be considered a rare splurge by the NE FO is A. Thomas. He hasn't helped them win a SB either. So, doesn't look there is much evidence that throwing money at the high priced free agents has gotten any team consistently better. In fact, it usually seems to do the opposite. Deion Sanders was a high priced mercenary for a couple of teams, but those teams also had solid cores they built through the draft before they spent the cash on Deion. And then, of course, the Redskins broke that trend of Deion putting a team over the top.

[SkinsFreak]

I said they all weren't top tier. But they have been active in free agency every year, and that was my point. But I think coaching has more to do with their success rather than a lack of paying huge contracts. I understand your point, but it has been several years since the Skins gave out any huge contracts in free agency, so I do recognize a change. I have agreed many times that the size and structure of some contracts awarded by the Skins should be reconsidered and remedied, but I don't agree with turning your back on free agency either, which is my only point.

[fleetus]

Sorry, my bad. Looks like we mostly agree. I think the past two years have been an improvement also. But giving away a 2nd rounder for JT was a big mistake. and now, i feel we almost have to keep JT just to try and salvage something from him after giving away such a valuable pick.

Again, not that the Patriots acquisition of Moss was one of their best (it obviously wasn't) but even then you can see a clear difference in how they handle things. They believe in buy low, sell high, whereas the redskins get caught up in the hype too easily and overpay for players based on those players exceeding all expectations. Moss was a super talent buried in an awful Raiders organization with no decent QB or OL to help. Patriots swoop in, offer a 4th rounder and make Moss promise to be a good teammate and take a salary reduction. patriots know they can plug moss into a team full of veteran leaders, with the best QB in the NFL.

We go after JT, coming off his Dancing with the Stars gig. Even though he has shown his best performances in a 3-4 defense, Parcells, a 3-4 guru himself, isn't interested in keeping him. Redskins swoop in and pay a 2nd round pick, don't ask JT to restructure his huge contract at all, and then proceed to play him at LE of a base 4-3! Injury aside, who could have expected a performance from JT worthy of 8+ mil salary plus a 2nd rounder while playing in a scheme not suited to his talents?

My point is, we need to do MORE than just be quiet in free agency. We have to scout well, we have to value our draft picks much more highly. We have to cherry pick players who fit our scheme precisely and thereby pay less for what they are worth to us. we have to have coaches that are good at improving the players they are given and adapting the scheme to fit the players they have. A team has to dedicate itself to these tenants of business every year without exception. We're starting to show small signs of improvement, but Snyder and Cerrato are already skating on thin ice in my opinion. They better stick to a plan and make it work.

[VetSkinsFan]

Anybody else notice during Belichek's film study prior to the Super Bowl that he showed multiple examples of what not to do vs. the Steelers involving the Redskins game. One play that sticks out was Jansen getting beat clean off the line without getting a hand on Woodley. At that point I changed my mind that this might be our biggest priority.

Belichek noted that the Skins coaches had the perfect blocking scheme called but the players (Jansen and Cartwright) failed to execute the play.

I absolutely agree and something I think some fans refuse to recognize. The o-line fails to execute, but the coach and the QB get the blame.

Many on the board has acknowledged that the line is in need of a rebuild. That doesn't mean that the QB and coaches aren't to blame as well for the outcome. If the playcalling stinks, then the playcalling stinks, regardless of the output of the QB and the line. If the QB holds the ball for 3 seconds longer than the play is designed, then it's the QB's fault. Timing is everything.

[SkinsFreak]

Anybody else notice during Belichek's film study prior to the Super Bowl that he showed multiple examples of what not to do vs. the Steelers involving the Redskins game. One play that sticks out was Jansen getting beat clean off the line without getting a hand on Woodley. At that point I changed my mind that this might be our biggest priority.

Belichek noted that the Skins coaches had the perfect blocking scheme called but the players (Jansen and Cartwright) failed to execute the play.

I absolutely agree and something I think some fans refuse to recognize. The o-line fails to execute, but the coach and the QB get the blame.

Many on the board has acknowledged that the line is in need of a rebuild. That doesn't mean that the QB and coaches aren't to blame as well for the outcome. If the playcalling stinks, then the playcalling stinks, regardless of the output of the QB and the line. If the QB holds the ball for 3 seconds longer than the play is designed, then it's the QB's fault. Timing is everything.

Well, of course. If the o-line can't block, everything else in turn is affected, such as the timing. But if a play breaks down, the immediate and uniformed conclusion by a few around here is that the coaches playcalling stinks, the QB called the wrong protection and held the ball too long. When in fact, an extremely intelligent, experienced and seasoned football person can easily recognize that the correct play and protection was called, but the o-line flat-out whiffed on their assignments. I recognize that some fans here have now been clued in that the o-line was our weakest link, but it wasn't always that way.

[SkinsJock]

I agree that to be successful on offense you also need all the intangibles. The line has to be decent, the game planning has to take everything into account, etc etc etc ... Fact remains the QB has to be able to make the plays and this guy has not shown that he's going to be special. As someone else has already pointed out - we have a team that will overspend at almost any position, surely we deserve to have one of the best QBs in the NFL.

We need a decent scoring offense to go along with a very good defense - we can revamp the whole offense all you want but it is not going to make that much difference if we continue with this guy leading it for too much longer.

Any decent QB will be good if he has a great line and a great supporting cast, both on the field and on the sidelines - we need a guy that can make up for not quite that on most days and I am afraid I do not see that in Campbell.

[riggofan]

Well, of course. If the o-line can't block, everything else in turn is affected, such as the timing. But if a play breaks down, the immediate and uniformed conclusion by a few around here is that the coaches playcalling stinks, the QB called the wrong protection and held the ball too long. When in fact, an extremely intelligent, experienced and seasoned football person can easily recognize that the correct play and protection was called, but the o-line flat-out whiffed on their assignments. I recognize that some fans here have now been clued in that the o-line was our weakest link, but it wasn't always that way.

THANK YOU, skinsfreak.

This stuff is like complaining that you have engine problems when you car is sitting on four flat tires.

[fleetus]

I agree that to be successful on offense you also need all the intangibles. The line has to be decent, the game planning has to take everything into account, etc etc etc ... Fact remains the QB has to be able to make the plays and this guy has not shown that he's going to be special. As someone else has already pointed out - we have a team that will overspend at almost any position, surely we deserve to have one of the best QBs in the NFL.

We need a decent scoring offense to go along with a very good defense - we can revamp the whole offense all you want but it is not going to make that much difference if we continue with this guy leading it for too much longer.

Any decent QB will be good if he has a great line and a great supporting cast, both on the field and on the sidelines - we need a guy that can make up for not quite that on most days and I am afraid I do not see that in Campbell.

Hmm... how quickly we forget.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... _half.html

[CanesSkins26]

I agree that to be successful on offense you also need all the intangibles. The line has to be decent, the game planning has to take everything into account, etc etc etc ... Fact remains the QB has to be able to make the plays and this guy has not shown that he's going to be special. As someone else has already pointed out - we have a team that will overspend at almost any position, surely we deserve to have one of the best QBs in the NFL.

We need a decent scoring offense to go along with a very good defense - we can revamp the whole offense all you want but it is not going to make that much difference if we continue with this guy leading it for too much longer.

Any decent QB will be good if he has a great line and a great supporting cast, both on the field and on the sidelines - we need a guy that can make up for not quite that on most days and I am afraid I do not see that in Campbell.

Hmm... how quickly we forget.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... _half.html

There are lots of players that have had good 8 game stretches during their career. Playing well for 8 games doesn't mean squat if you are going to look like total garbage in the remaining 8 games.

In addition, this mid-season MVP talk is a load of nonsense. It was Clinton Portis that was carrying our team during those first 8 games, not JC. Even with CP putting up huge numbers JC only managed 8 tds during the first half of the year. That is a pathetic number.

[fleetus]

I agree that to be successful on offense you also need all the intangibles. The line has to be decent, the game planning has to take everything into account, etc etc etc ... Fact remains the QB has to be able to make the plays and this guy has not shown that he's going to be special. As someone else has already pointed out - we have a team that will overspend at almost any position, surely we deserve to have one of the best QBs in the NFL.

We need a decent scoring offense to go along with a very good defense - we can revamp the whole offense all you want but it is not going to make that much difference if we continue with this guy leading it for too much longer.

Any decent QB will be good if he has a great line and a great supporting cast, both on the field and on the sidelines - we need a guy that can make up for not quite that on most days and I am afraid I do not see that in Campbell.

Hmm... how quickly we forget.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... _half.html

There are lots of players that have had good 8 game stretches during their career. Playing well for 8 games doesn't mean squat if you are going to look like total garbage in the remaining 8 games.

In addition, this mid-season MVP talk is a load of nonsense. It was Clinton Portis that was carrying our team during those first 8 games, not JC. Even with CP putting up huge numbers JC only managed 8 tds during the first half of the year. That is a pathetic number.

Canes - you're off point or just missing the point. There a few people on here, including the post I quoted saying JC hasn't shown he can be the Qb we need. I'm just reminding them that he did prove that for 8 games.

It seems pretty obvious that once the O-line got banged up and stopped blocking well and Portis got banged up that you can't lay all the blame on Campbell (or forget how good he was when the O-line was playing well.) not saying JC is Brady. But he is good enough to win in this league and has shown enough to warrant another chance. Would I bet the farm on him, well, obviously not. But some of you guys seem pretty intent on picking one horse and beating the crap out of it. Football is not that simple.

[CanesSkins26]

Canes - you're off point or just missing the point. There a few people on here, including the post I quoted saying JC hasn't shown he can be the Qb we need. I'm just reminding them that he did prove that for 8 games.

It seems pretty obvious that once the O-line got banged up and stopped blocking well and Portis got banged up that you can't lay all the blame on Campbell (or forget how good he was when the O-line was playing well.) not saying JC is Brady. But he is good enough to win in this league and has shown enough to warrant another chance.

Playing well for 8 games doesn't prove a damn thing. There have been lots of players that have played well for limited periods of time (remember Collins in 07?). I'll start thinking that JC can be the qb that we need when he puts together a full season of quality yet. He has yet to come close to doing that.

With regard to the banged up oline and CP. All you need to do for this is look no further than Big Ben. His oline was as bad, if not worse, than JC's this season and at one point their top 2 running backs were out with injuries. We all know how Pittsburgh's season turned out. Yes the oline makes a significant difference and when injuries happen there its normal for a qb's numbers to go down. However, JC's play didn't just decline a little bit, the guy was total garbage over the last 8 games on the season. All of that can't be blamed on the oline and CP. A good qb finds a way to make plays and make his teammates better. JC doesn't do that and that is why he is not a good NFL qb. For him to peform well everything around him has to be perfect and that's just not how it works in the NFL.

[Countertrey]

It seems pretty obvious that once the O-line got banged up and stopped blocking well and Portis got banged up that you can't lay all the blame on Campbell (or forget how good he was when the O-line was playing well.) not saying JC is Brady. But he is good enough to win in this league and has shown enough to warrant another chance. Would I bet the farm on him, well, obviously not. But some of you guys seem pretty intent on picking one horse and beating the crap out of it. Football is not that simple.

Pretty much all you say is true. The problem with Campbell being "good enough" is that he just has no heart... at least, none that he has shown us. I don't see anything about Jason Campbell that says "I want to be in, with 2 minutes left, and needing a touchdown to win". It's not there... and that is the most important intangable in finding a successful QB... not just that he believes he can do it... but that he convinces everyone else that he can do it... "with the game on the line, I will make it happen... give me the ball!" I didn't see that in him at the end of the season, true. The problem is, even when the Redskins were burning up the league in the beginning of the season, I didn't see it.

Jason Campbell???? Not so much.

[fleetus]

You're really just making some broad generalizations. Okay, so JC isn't as good as Big Ben either. So what's your point? We should dump him? Do you have a line on the next Big Ben and how we could get him on our roster?

Bottom line is, JC is still a young QB and was running Zorn's system for the first time last season. He did it well before injuries set in. You could also argue that the rest of the league adapted to what the Skins did by the 2nd half of the season. Obviously we don't have the best of WR's either.

So, if you're saying JC isn't good enough to be the starter, then I think you're wrong and missing the whole dynamic of 11 men on the field together. If you're saying JC is not Big Ben, well, I agree. But so what? Neither are 25 of the other starting QB's in the league. Big Ben sucked in his first Super Bowl, but they still won. Mark Rypien and Trent Dilfer weren't great QB's but they won Super Bowls. You don't need Peyton Manning to win a Super Bowl.

[CanesSkins26]

So, if you're saying JC isn't good enough to be the starter, then I think you're wrong and missing the whole dynamic of 11 men on the field together.

I'm saying that JC isn't even close to being good enough to be a starting qb for a team that wants to compete on a yearly basis. Sure he is good enough if you want to be 7-9 or 8-8 every year. But beyond that he just doesn't have what it takes. Like Countertrey said, he has no heart.

[fleetus]

Okay, we'll just have to disagree. I'm not laying my money down that JC will pan out to be a Pro Bowler, but I also think he has a good mentor in Zorn and showed much improvement last year. Enough that I want to see him again in 2009, assuming he wins the job in camp.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Bottom line is, JC is still a young QB and was running Zorn's system for the first time last season. He did it well before injuries set in. You could also argue that the rest of the league adapted to what the Skins did by the 2nd half of the season. Obviously we don't have the best of WR's either.

Before the injuries set in?

The injuries came because he, Zorn and the rest of the passing game were garbage. There would have not been a need to whore out Clinton and the run blocking if the passing game was AT LEAST COMPETENT.

He did well before the injuries? He did well because he didn't have to do anything but the bare min. The moment CP's body broke down due to overuse, Jason and the rest of those bums were not able to shoulder the load. And why would they? They weren't carrying their share of the load from the get-go.

Zorns ONLY stamp on the offense was the passing game. And it failed miserably. The running game was carried over from Gibbs and clicked just like it always has. To give Zorn some credit, the passing game has been horrible for a while...


I'm sure you'll disagree with me but 2-6 agrees with me... This season can be broken into halves.

6-2 - CP and the Line
2-6 - Jason, Zorn and the Smurfettes.

Now... I say without any doubt in my heart that if the passing game was at least somewhat competent, we would have made the playoffs and challenged any team.

[brad7686]

Anybody else notice during Belichek's film study prior to the Super Bowl that he showed multiple examples of what not to do vs. the Steelers involving the Redskins game. One play that sticks out was Jansen getting beat clean off the line without getting a hand on Woodley. At that point I changed my mind that this might be our biggest priority.

Belichek noted that the Skins coaches had the perfect blocking scheme called but the players (Jansen and Cartwright) failed to execute the play.

I absolutely agree and something I think some fans refuse to recognize. The o-line fails to execute, but the coach and the QB get the blame.

Yea, no one acknowledges that when LB's or DE's get a clean release off the line that Jansen and Heyer are terrible. They expect Zorn to make calls around that and they expect Campbell to run from people coming full speed like Woodley, who probably runs 4.6 or less in the 40. Its ironic Belichick pointed that out, because Vrabel got a clean release at least 5 times in the beatdown they put on us a few years ago. I guess people want Zorn fired or Mark Sanchez (who won't escape LB's at full speed either) to be drafted. Believe me, we NEED a RT.