The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bye, Bye Brunell
From Jason L: Former starting quarterback Mark Brunell has signed with the New Orleans Saints, according to a league source. Brunell visited the Saints this week and also drew significant interest from Atlanta and Green Bay. He was the first player Joe Gibbs pursued after returning to coaching in 2004. He was the primary starter the next two seasons before losing his starting job to Jason Campbell midway through the 2006 season.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Accordingto the official website, we offered contracts to Fabini & Frost.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=7536

Fabini???? The guy is a bum!

Would you care to suggest any other reasonably priced, multiple position offensive linemen who know the tendencies of the players on either side of them? They don't exist. Fabini has 127 career starts, including 13 games for the Redskins last season. That means he was starting for all of the games during the Redskins winning streak. I didn't hear anyone complaining then. In fact, we were damn lucky to have him with all of the injured linemen.

I was complaining ever time I saw him play. In fact there was a play in the playoff game where Fabini only used one hand to try and block Patrick Kearney. He got his butt whooped repeatedly.

He played on the Cowboys team and got cut. Then guess who signed him??
In fact he was a third string tight end on the Cowboys team then they cut him.

Yet the Skins have him put on some weight and think he can make a good lineman?????? Whatever! Your type of thinking is what keeps the Redskins in the toilet.

I offer championship minded thinking. Get with the program people or you will just be mediocre forever.

Who didn't get abused by Patrick Kerney last season? That has to be the absolute worst possible example of why you think Fabini "sucks". Kerney had 14.5 sacks last season. Apparently, a whole lot of offensive linemen "suck". Either that or Kerney is a really gifted defensive lineman.
Nobody is saying Fabini is Russ Grimm. He simply isn't anywhere near the bottom of the offensive lineman barrel.

The Redskins could have pissed away a fortune for Alan Faneca but I'm sure people would have complained about that, too. We can't have it both ways. Either the Redskins keep reasonably priced players and build through the draft or they sell the farm and the cow for pro-bowlers who underachieve. Those are the options. I'll take option A for the veteran minimum, Alex. And the answer is: "Who is Jason Fabini?"

I have seen him do more bad plays then positive. In fact I cant even remember when Fabini did a good play. He always gets pushed around everytime he is in the game.

Why even sign a low to mediocre player? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Some people dont realize that weak players are liabilities on the field. Opposing teams will just exploit the weakness. Whichever side Fabini is on.
I hope he somehow makes me eat my words. So far he has proven me right.

You do realize that Fabini wasn't, and to my knowledge still isn't, a starter, right?

He was also playing on a line decimated by injuries, so it wasn't like he was surrounded by starters.

Sure, he was in no risk of being in the pro-bowl, but everyone will tell you, you don't spend more money on your back-up players than your starters.

And yes, teams certainly do go for the weak spot, so they threw everything they had at him, because his side of the line consisted of two back-up players throughout most of the year.

Depth is obviously very important. But depth doesn't really mean much if you're backups aren't any good. Fabini hasn't shown himself to be anything other than a below average NFL player. If we held onto more draft picks and drafted better with the ones that we have, we wouldn't have to sign guys like Fabini to be backups.

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Accordingto the official website, we offered contracts to Fabini & Frost.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=7536

Fabini???? The guy is a bum!

Would you care to suggest any other reasonably priced, multiple position offensive linemen who know the tendencies of the players on either side of them? They don't exist. Fabini has 127 career starts, including 13 games for the Redskins last season. That means he was starting for all of the games during the Redskins winning streak. I didn't hear anyone complaining then. In fact, we were damn lucky to have him with all of the injured linemen.

I was complaining ever time I saw him play. In fact there was a play in the playoff game where Fabini only used one hand to try and block Patrick Kearney. He got his butt whooped repeatedly.

He played on the Cowboys team and got cut. Then guess who signed him??
In fact he was a third string tight end on the Cowboys team then they cut him.

Yet the Skins have him put on some weight and think he can make a good lineman?????? Whatever! Your type of thinking is what keeps the Redskins in the toilet.

I offer championship minded thinking. Get with the program people or you will just be mediocre forever.

Who didn't get abused by Patrick Kerney last season? That has to be the absolute worst possible example of why you think Fabini "sucks". Kerney had 14.5 sacks last season. Apparently, a whole lot of offensive linemen "suck". Either that or Kerney is a really gifted defensive lineman.
Nobody is saying Fabini is Russ Grimm. He simply isn't anywhere near the bottom of the offensive lineman barrel.

The Redskins could have pissed away a fortune for Alan Faneca but I'm sure people would have complained about that, too. We can't have it both ways. Either the Redskins keep reasonably priced players and build through the draft or they sell the farm and the cow for pro-bowlers who underachieve. Those are the options. I'll take option A for the veteran minimum, Alex. And the answer is: "Who is Jason Fabini?"

I have seen him do more bad plays then positive. In fact I cant even remember when Fabini did a good play. He always gets pushed around everytime he is in the game.

Why even sign a low to mediocre player? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Some people dont realize that weak players are liabilities on the field. Opposing teams will just exploit the weakness. Whichever side Fabini is on.
I hope he somehow makes me eat my words. So far he has proven me right.

The reason for signing mediocre players is clear. The Redskins have gone in the other direction, signing big name free agents, so many times that the media uses the Redskins as a control for what the rest of the league is doing in free agency. The strategy of signing nothing but big names has never worked for the Redskins. The strategy of signing mediocre backups and building through the draft has given the Redskins most of the teams' core players.

2007 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 6 LaRon Landry SS Louisiana State
6 179 H.B. Blades LB Pittsburgh
7 216 Tyler Ecker TE Michigan
2006 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 35 Rocky McIntosh LB Miami (Fla.)
5 153 Anthony Montgomery DT Minnesota
6 173 Reed Doughty DB Northern Colorado
6 196 Kedric Golston DT Georgia
2005 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 9 Carlos Rogers DB Auburn
1 25 Jason Campbell QB Auburn
2004 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 5 Sean Taylor FS Miami (Fla.)
3 81 Chris ey TE Utah State
2003 - Washington Redskins
2002 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 56 Ladell Betts RB Iowa
7 257 Rock Cartwright RB Kansas State
2001 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 45 Fred Smoot CB Mississippi State
2000 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 3 Chris Samuels T Alabama

That's 15 players acquired through the draft in the last 7 years who are still on the active roster. I deleted those players no longer with the Redskins and those players no longer in the league, excepting S.T.

How many high-priced free agents have the Redskins signed in the last seven seasons? How many remained on the active roster for more than one season? How many played enough snaps to be even remotely worth the price of admission? London Fletcher and possibly Andre Carter and Pete Kendall. I may be missing someone but there are nowhere near 15 high-priced, overpaid free agents signed by the Redskins in the last seven years who have remain on the active team roster.

fleetus wrote:"False Start, Fabini!"

Seriously, Fabini is a decent player. Like already mentioned, he had an undrafted free agent rookie playing next to him at RT. So they were under siege. I would keep Fabini before Todd Wade (and his salary), who many people on this board were so enamored with last off-season. Fabini is a serviceable guard/tackle which is what you need from a back-up.

Now if the FO starts valuing draft picks as more than chicklets to be handed out every year, we might start building some more talented depth at some of these positions. Instead of giving away 3rd round picks for B. Lloyd we could have a solid 3rd year backup Guard who could become a solid starter.

Countertrey wrote:

Well I am pretty sure you insulted players many a time. So throw your stones at someone else. Last time I checked this was a country which grants free speech. I choose to exercise that right.

Since you have never coached, played or been a GM in the NFL? I guess you can never make any criticism about any NFL employee. Wow great logic.

Well, you clearly know how to use a Red Herring, even if not effectively. Criticism is one thing. Name calling (you were name calling, unless "Fabini is a bum" means something else on the planet where you live) is quite another. Same goes for players like Brunell. He may be on the down hill side of his playing skills, but that doesn't make him a bum, either. I just get sick of the complete lack of civility towards these good folks.

Your suggestion that I have insulted some players is quite correct... Michael Vick, Adam Jones, Cinco Ocho, TO... yup... I will CONTINUE to have no problem doing that with talented players who decide that the rules don't apply to them, or who consistenly spell TEAM with an I. These are players who's attitudes and actions have earned them some contempt.

Not quite the same as insulting a less talented man who works his tail off, obeys all the rules, but still gets beat. Decrying his failures is one thing... the name calling, quite another.

Free speech, sure. That means I get to comment, as well... so I did... (and, I will).

You don't like that Fabini has a new contract offer... fine. Be pissed at the FO. Insult them. They are the ones who are paying for what in your mind is sub-par talent... from Fabini's perspective, only an idiot would say "no".

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Accordingto the official website, we offered contracts to Fabini & Frost.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=7536

Fabini???? The guy is a bum!

Would you care to suggest any other reasonably priced, multiple position offensive linemen who know the tendencies of the players on either side of them? They don't exist. Fabini has 127 career starts, including 13 games for the Redskins last season. That means he was starting for all of the games during the Redskins winning streak. I didn't hear anyone complaining then. In fact, we were damn lucky to have him with all of the injured linemen.

I was complaining ever time I saw him play. In fact there was a play in the playoff game where Fabini only used one hand to try and block Patrick Kearney. He got his butt whooped repeatedly.

He played on the Cowboys team and got cut. Then guess who signed him??
In fact he was a third string tight end on the Cowboys team then they cut him.

Yet the Skins have him put on some weight and think he can make a good lineman?????? Whatever! Your type of thinking is what keeps the Redskins in the toilet.

I offer championship minded thinking. Get with the program people or you will just be mediocre forever.

Who didn't get abused by Patrick Kerney last season? That has to be the absolute worst possible example of why you think Fabini "sucks". Kerney had 14.5 sacks last season. Apparently, a whole lot of offensive linemen "suck". Either that or Kerney is a really gifted defensive lineman.
Nobody is saying Fabini is Russ Grimm. He simply isn't anywhere near the bottom of the offensive lineman barrel.

The Redskins could have pissed away a fortune for Alan Faneca but I'm sure people would have complained about that, too. We can't have it both ways. Either the Redskins keep reasonably priced players and build through the draft or they sell the farm and the cow for pro-bowlers who underachieve. Those are the options. I'll take option A for the veteran minimum, Alex. And the answer is: "Who is Jason Fabini?"

I have seen him do more bad plays then positive. In fact I cant even remember when Fabini did a good play. He always gets pushed around everytime he is in the game.

Why even sign a low to mediocre player? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Some people dont realize that weak players are liabilities on the field. Opposing teams will just exploit the weakness. Whichever side Fabini is on.
I hope he somehow makes me eat my words. So far he has proven me right.

The reason for signing mediocre players is clear. The Redskins have gone in the other direction, signing big name free agents, so many times that the media uses the Redskins as a control for what the rest of the league is doing in free agency. The strategy of signing nothing but big names has never worked for the Redskins. The strategy of signing mediocre backups and building through the draft has given the Redskins most of the teams' core players.

2007 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 6 LaRon Landry SS Louisiana State
6 179 H.B. Blades LB Pittsburgh
7 216 Tyler Ecker TE Michigan
2006 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 35 Rocky McIntosh LB Miami (Fla.)
5 153 Anthony Montgomery DT Minnesota
6 173 Reed Doughty DB Northern Colorado
6 196 Kedric Golston DT Georgia
2005 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 9 Carlos Rogers DB Auburn
1 25 Jason Campbell QB Auburn
2004 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 5 Sean Taylor FS Miami (Fla.)
3 81 Chris ey TE Utah State
2003 - Washington Redskins
2002 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 56 Ladell Betts RB Iowa
7 257 Rock Cartwright RB Kansas State
2001 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
2 45 Fred Smoot CB Mississippi State
2000 - Washington Redskins
Rd Sel # Player Position School
1 3 Chris Samuels T Alabama

That's 15 players acquired through the draft in the last 7 years who are still on the active roster. I deleted those players no longer with the Redskins and those players no longer in the league, excepting S.T.

How many high-priced free agents have the Redskins signed in the last seven seasons? How many remained on the active roster for more than one season? How many played enough snaps to be even remotely worth the price of admission? London Fletcher and possibly Andre Carter and Pete Kendall. I may be missing someone but there are nowhere near 15 high-priced, overpaid free agents signed by the Redskins in the last seven years who have remain on the active team roster.

You seem to think I want overpriced free agents! Wrong!!!!!

The point I am trying to get across is this. I want only good to excellent players on the Roster.

The stategy goes like this. Draft talented players to be backup to starters. If they eventually become pro bowlers we have the option of resigning them or letting them go.

I want to just cut loose the players who do not help when they are in the game. I just dont see why we have to keep depth of doodoo.

SkinsFreak wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

Really? That's it? Just work really, really hard and you'll become a Pro Bowl caliber player? Holy crap! You know, guys like James Thrash and London Fletcher are known as being extremely tenacious players. I guess they didn't get the memo.

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

GSPODS wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

Wrong damn answer. What separates ProBowl players from non-ProBowl players is popularity. When the players and the coaches alone voted for ProBowl players talent and performance were what separated ProBowlers from non-ProBowlers. What separates them now is idiotic fans who watch ESPN and believe everything they see and hear.

SkinsFreak wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

Really? That's it? Just work really, really hard and you'll become a Pro Bowl caliber player? Holy crap! You know, guys like James Thrash and London Fletcher are known as being extremely tenacious players. I guess they didn't get the memo.

SkinsFreak wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

Really? That's it? Just work really, really hard and you'll become a Pro Bowl caliber player? Holy crap! You know, guys like James Thrash and London Fletcher are known as being extremely tenacious players. I guess they didn't get the memo.

HEROHAMO wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:What separates the Pro Bowlers from the non Pro bowlers?

There work ethic basically. Any guy who works his tail off would at least be good to excellent. I dont see Fabini as being a hard worker.

Really? That's it? Just work really, really hard and you'll become a Pro Bowl caliber player? Holy crap! You know, guys like James Thrash and London Fletcher are known as being extremely tenacious players. I guess they didn't get the memo.

Let me rephrase that. Pro Bowl Caliber players. All pro. Productive players. Players with finely tuned skills.

No wonder our team has not won a SuperBowl in years. Half of the fans dont even know what it takes to become a champion. Heck I thought some of you would know the value of hardwork.

Oops pardon me. I grew up in the generation where kids played outside and were actually active. I must be talking to a kid who played playstation all day. Never mind you just wont understand.

In an encouragingly titled article, for us at least, Rick Gosselin argues that Smart NFL teams spend little in free agency. I'm not crazy about Rick -- he writes for a rival supporting Dallas Morning News and I felt he was an integral part in keeping Art Monk out of the Hall for so long, but can't confirm that since Gosselin had a no-talkie talkie policy with fans (though he seemed like a nice enough guy when I emailed him) In Re: Art Monk HOF bid -- but I absolutely support his contention that not spending huge boatloads of cash on free agents can be a viable winning strategy and in fact often is. He has some convincing anecdotes:

["[In 2007] the New York Giants were sitting out the spending spree. To borrow a Jerry Jones term, the Giants were "keeping their powder dry." [And then they won the Super Bowl yeehaw.]...

In 2006, the Indianapolis Colts signed only one free agent, and he wasn't even a position player - kicker Adam Vinatieri. The Colts wound up winning the Super Bowl.

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Steelers also signed only one free agent - wide receiver Cedrick Wilson - to a four-year deal worth less than $10 million. He didn't even start for the Steelers. But guess who won the Super Bowl that year?"]

One thing to note about those anecdotes. In all three cases the teams were pretty damn good the year they stayed quiet in the offseason. The Steelers were coming off a 2004 season with 15 wins. The 2005 Colts, by comparison, only won 14 games. Were I sitting on a roster good enough to win 14-15 games in a 16 game regular season, I'd hesitate to fidget with the roster.

Even though the 2006 Giants were tame in comparison to those two teams at 8-8, they were a postseason contender that was 4 points shy of a playoff victory over division rival Philly. They also made the postseason in '05 and were, I believe, the NFC East champs. In other words it was a pretty talented team that needed little fidgeting.

So when I support not messing with a roster, what I really support is not messing with a good thing. There isn't any utility in keeping the same staff and personnel if you're, say, the 1-15 Miami Dolphins. Refusing to mix up that roster would be akin to throwing in the towel. Off the top of my head the 2005 New Orleans Saints won just three games and 10 the following year, largely because of the addition of Marques Colston and Reggie Bush in the draft and expensive free agent Drew Brees from San Diego. If your team sucks, if the personnel isn't there at key positions, you're crazy not to mix things up. In other words, sometimes it is best to acquire players in free agency, and I'd even go so far as to say the Redskins did it right last offseason. Rick disagrees:

["There's a frenzy in the fan bases of 32 NFL teams each off-season. Spend. Buy free agents. The bigger the contract, the better the signing. If you're not spending, you're not trying to get better as a football team."]

Au contraire.

The Cowboys, Cleveland Browns, San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks each signed a free agent to a contract in excess of $39 million last off-season. In addition, the Washington Redskins gave aging middle linebacker London Fletcher a $10 million signing bonus...
I'd point out that if you are trying to compel towards the conclusion that spending on free agents is not the proper way to win, there were much, much better examples for this particular franchise than London Fletcher who, by all accounts, was a gigantic improvement over Lemar Marshall and in no small part explains the difference between a 31st ranked 2006 defense and a top 10 defense in 2007. Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd bad, bad, bad free agency moves. London Fletcher, hundred+ tackler for seven straight seasons in three different cities, extremely reliable pass defender with 10 defensed and three picks (uno for a touchdown) -- a steal at 10M signing bonus. If all our free agents panned out as well as he did, I'd have no problem with a spend-first-ask-questions-later strategy.

As a practical matter, there's a world of difference between the '06 49ers, who won just 7 games in the worst division in football, or the '06 Browns (4-12) and the '05 Colts, '04 Steelers or '06 Giants. Those were bad teams that needed to spend to improve, and in fact the Browns did improve, dramatically. They won more games than they had in 13 years. Rick can "Au contraire" all he wants and poo poo that spending strategy, but every one of the teams he listed improved sans the 49ers (his Cowboys, for instance, matched a franchise record with 13 wins as a result).

The Redskins, who were not good in '06 and needed personnel to improve and did precisely that. I fail to see what's foolish about having a 5-11 team, spending some money, and finishing with a better 9-7 product that happens to be contending in the postseason in a pretty difficult division. In other words, it's a good idea not to spend money on expensive free agents... except when it's not. Circumstance is important and any categorical strategy is sure to fail when it seeks to apply itself equally to a 16-0 Patriots team and a 1-15 Miami Dolphins team.

But, given the circumstances described by Rick for Super Bowl bound teams in '04, '05, and '06, I think the Redskins and others are on the right side of the strategy in sitting on their roster. The Redskins erred, in my opinion, in trying to church up a 2005 roster that was good enough to win 10 games. The result was a disastrous '06, but we rebuilt and here we are again right on the precipice of looking like a contender, perhaps for more than one year at a time. Rick opened the article thus:

["I love what the Green Bay Packers have done thus far in free agency.

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing."]

He didn't say it but doesn't need to. He's also talking about Your Washington Redskins.

Jake wrote:Derrick Frost agreed to terms on a 1-year deal to re-sign with us. This is about the only move I disagree with in free agency.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=1551

GSPODS wrote:

Jake wrote:Derrick Frost agreed to terms on a 1-year deal to re-sign with us. This is about the only move I disagree with in free agency.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=1551

Unfortunately, there weren't many more appealing options in free agency, unless the Skins wanted 39 year old Matt Turk back.

"I'm just happy to get it done," Frost said. "I'm excited to to return for [a fourth] year in Washington. I look forward to proving myself again and earning a long-term contract next year."

Hackett would have been a perfect addition but we were either too cheap, or too poor of salesmen to get him to sign with Washington.

Countertrey wrote:

Hackett would have been a perfect addition but we were either too cheap, or too poor of salesmen to get him to sign with Washington.

I doubt that there is anyone outside of the Seahawks who knows Hackett better than Zorn. If he really wanted him, he would have gotten him. Think about it. My suspicion is, Zorn thought he would have been a decent aquisition... but not a game breaker... so, he didn't ask the FO to do "what ever it would take" to get him.

GSPODS wrote:

Jake wrote:Derrick Frost agreed to terms on a 1-year deal to re-sign with us. This is about the only move I disagree with in free agency.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=1551

Unfortunately, there weren't many more appealing options in free agency, unless the Skins wanted 39 year old Matt Turk back.

Posted at 10:23 PM ET, 03/20/2008
Will New Philosophy Work Out?

JReid files again:
From reading your responses to our recent posts, I get the feeling many of you are upset that the Redskins haven't done more in free agency. In addition to re-signing backup quarterback Todd Collins and return specialist Rock Cartwright, Washington pursued former Seattle wide receiver D.J. Hackett, who this week joined the Carolina Panthers.
Based on Washington's free-spending history, I braced for a wild ride in my first experience with free agency in the NFL. Under owner Dan Snyder, the Redskins have been among the league's most aggressive teams at pursuing players, but they weren't in this market.
With Hackett having rejected Washington's minimum offer (the Panthers reportedly gave Hackett a two-year, $3.5-million deal) the Redskins have shifted their focus to the draft to fill needs. The Redskins' lack of activity probably shouldn't have come as a surprise, especially considering that Vinny Cerrato, Washington's executive vice president of football operations, repeatedly told anyone who asked that the team wouldn't be a major player in this market.
Of course, many people in power often are less than truthful in their public comments about, well, everything, so some skepticism about the Redskins' supposed new approach wasn't surprising. But Cerrato also told many agents he wasn't interested in their clients, and that wasn't for public consumption. In fairness to the Redskins, the market wasn't considered deep, compared to previous seasons, because many of the top potential free agents signed new deals with their teams or couldn't test the water because they were designated with franchise tags.
To be sure, there were talented players available, though few had been productive starters for many seasons. After a season in which the Redskins qualified for the playoffs and many first- and second-year players made major contributions down the stretch in the regular season, Cerrato, new head coach Jim Zorn and their staffs determined Washington did not need four or five new starters. The Redskins want to get younger on the offensive and defensive lines, improve their depth at corner and safety and add a pass-rushing end.
That seems like a whole lot to accomplish in one draft even with having many picks (the Redskins have all their selections except one in the fourth round and are expected to get two more compensation picks), but the Redskins feel good about their roster. If the Redskins are right about quarterback Jason Campbell - and they believe they are - they expect to be a playoff team for the next six to 10 years.
As for failing to sign a big wide receiver to help Campbell as he learns Zorn's version of the West Coast offense, the Redskins will be a player in the bidding for Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad Johnson, a team source said, if Cincinnati decides to trade the disgruntled star. That's unlikely to happen because of the salary-cap ramifications for the Bengals, but the Redskins have room to maneuver (about $8 million) and still would prefer to acquire a bigger target for Campbell.
Were there free agents who could have helped the Redskins? Probably. But the Redskins just didn't believe the guys available were worth the cost. If they make the playoffs next season, no one will remember that they sat on the sideline during this time. Now, if they don't make the playoffs ...