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

I don't see what there is to gripe about.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I don't see what there is to gripe about.

exactly - we just upgraded our RBs and the message is also clear to all players

I cant imagine Portis staying here. Rock Cartwright was a special teams standout. Which worked with him being a 3rd back. Unless Willie can return kicks - I cant see all 5 of the current RBs remaining.

Redskin in Canada wrote:we are planning to have a rotation whereby one RB only runs for 4 games next season. Once he gets hurt,he goes to IR and the next one takes over, but only for 4 more games because ... we have two more disposable RBs o finish the rest of the 8 games in the season among them.

Okay, just a question, RiC. I know you all do things differently in Canada, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how 3 runningbacks, each playing in 4 games, covers the full season. Here in the US, 3x4 = 12, leaving 4 games uncovered.

Who's next, Ernest Byner? Maybe John Riggins wants to un-retire. How many over-the-hill rb's can you have on one team?

This is a good signing. He comes very cheap (the deal is worth up to $3 mil but he won't hit any of his incentives), he's only 30 and has had relatively few carries in his career, provides a change-of-pace, and is an acceptable backup. I'm not so concerned about his injury record: I would have been more worried about Betts had he stuck around.

Sure, it's a one-year solution. But I don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking that we will have the resources to cover our needs at RB as well as every other position which needs a fix. And just because we don't have a true #1 RB anymore doesn't mean that quality depth is a bad thing.

SkinsJock wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I don't see what there is to gripe about.

exactly - we just upgraded our RBs and the message is also clear to all players

+2

There is really no downside to this. Portis has had some injuries and he has lots of mileage. he's not known for his off-season work ethic. Shanahan has made it clear, he expects Portis to work his butt off.

So why not bring in some real competition? At the very least, Portis has to actually win the starting RB job for the first time ever as a Redskin.

Parker and LJ are both looking to re-establish their starting abilities. If just one of them regains some of their old form, this will be a good move. And Portis knows these guys are professionals, who know how to work and how to succeed. The 2010 starting RB of the Washington Redskins will have to be the winner of a three way battle between three very competitive and experienced guys.

(also, LJ may be a better short yardage, goal line back than we've had in years past)

I love it, 3 very good RBs and now we can concentrate on the OL that we desperately need

langleyparkjoe wrote:... and now we can concentrate on the OL that we desperately need

I am praying that you are right brother. I am praying real hard.

Irn-Bru wrote:But I don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking that we will have the resources to cover our needs at RB as well as every other position which needs a fix. And just because we don't have a true #1 RB anymore doesn't mean that quality depth is a bad thing.

A lot of people are kidding themselves.

We don't need a true #1, the league is moving away from that. As much as you guys hate to hear it but Baltimore is a prime example. Willis is over the hill but he's brought in late in games with fresh legs. Ray Rice beats the hell out of defenses, Willis finishes them off. We got 3 guys that very few defenses will want to see with fresh legs, even if they are declining.

Running back by committee. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's the same as he had in Denver. He'll ride the hot back each week, or the back that has a running style that gives us the best chance of winning.

McNabb to Parker...TOUCHDOWN!!!

The more I think about it and read others' reactions, the more I see it's not too bad of a thing. Aside form my personal feelings for LJ, I can be content with the RB by committee. It just feels like we're running another over the hill gang. Couple these two with McNabb, and it looks like we're trying to BE a contender this year. Time will tell.

Irn-Bru wrote:This is a good signing. He comes very cheap (the deal is worth up to $3 mil but he won't hit any of his incentives), he's only 30 and has had relatively few carries in his career, provides a change-of-pace, and is an acceptable backup. I'm not so concerned about his injury record: I would have been more worried about Betts had he stuck around.

Sure, it's a one-year solution. But I don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking that we will have the resources to cover our needs at RB as well as every other position which needs a fix. And just because we don't have a true #1 RB anymore doesn't mean that quality depth is a bad thing.

I concur.

VetSkinsFan wrote:it looks like we're trying to BE a contender this year.

Is that really such a bad thing? Yes, I know we need to be taking a long term view, but what's so wrong with being competitive in the short term, too?

Got to shore up the offensive line before we can even get going.

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:it looks like we're trying to BE a contender this year.

Is that really such a bad thing? Yes, I know we need to be taking a long term view, but what's so wrong with being competitive in the short term, too?

Because your focus has to be either one or the other. I would prefer to take our time and get the best bang for our buck over time, and all these FAs aren't in my idea of a long term plan.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:it looks like we're trying to BE a contender this year.

Is that really such a bad thing? Yes, I know we need to be taking a long term view, but what's so wrong with being competitive in the short term, too?

Because your focus has to be either one or the other. I would prefer to take our time and get the best bang for our buck over time, and all these FAs aren't in my idea of a long term plan.

I disagree. I think you can have both in the works at the same time. You plug holes in FA where you can in the short term, and add players through the draft for the long term. If we can recoup our 2nd rounder for Campbell (and I think we may have already had a deal in the works when we made this trade), then this is a perfect example. I think you have to wait until after the draft to say we can't be competitive this year, and still have our eye on the future. I really don't think Shanahan would have even come here, if he wasn't thinking long term success. And if he thinks he can make the team better in the short term too, all the better.

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:it looks like we're trying to BE a contender this year.

Is that really such a bad thing? Yes, I know we need to be taking a long term view, but what's so wrong with being competitive in the short term, too?

Because your focus has to be either one or the other. I would prefer to take our time and get the best bang for our buck over time, and all these FAs aren't in my idea of a long term plan.

I disagree. I think you can have both in the works at the same time. You plug holes in FA where you can in the short term, and add players through the draft for the long term. If we can recoup our 2nd rounder for Campbell (and I think we may have already had a deal in the works when we made this trade), then this is a perfect example. I think you have to wait until after the draft to say we can't be competitive this year, and still have our eye on the future. I really don't think Shanahan would have even come here, if he wasn't thinking long term success. And if he thinks he can make the team better in the short term too, all the better.

You still prioritize. It seems to me we're prioritizing in the short term. Just like these RB signings. Our youngest RB is Portis now, right? Who has the most mileage out of the 3 backs we currently have on our roster? We still have a lot of depth issues...and I don't see us managing that well.

Deadskins is dead on. With the exception of McNabb, all of the vets acquired this year have been free agents on short term contracts in a cap free year. They have virtually no cost in our current or future ability to build through the draft. This means that they permit the team to build to compete now AND build to compete in the future.

Countertrey wrote:Deadskins is dead on. With the exception of McNabb, all of the vets acquired this year have been free agents on short term contracts in a cap free year. They have virtually no cost in our current or future ability to build through the draft. This means that they permit the team to build to compete now AND build to compete in the future.

I'm not excluding the two draft picks we've traded away so far, though.

I understand your point, but with respect to the RB position, I don't feel your pain. RBs are fairly easy to replace in any draft, and their NFL lifespan is very short compared with other positions. It looks to me like we are filling other holes through FA, so that we can concentrate on OL during the draft. That to me is a very sound strategy, since you win games in the trenches, and that's where your youth movement should be concentrated.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Deadskins is dead on. With the exception of McNabb, all of the vets acquired this year have been free agents on short term contracts in a cap free year. They have virtually no cost in our current or future ability to build through the draft. This means that they permit the team to build to compete now AND build to compete in the future.

I'm not excluding the two draft picks we've traded away so far, though.

Those were for McNabb... and have NO bearing on the other players, who have all been free agents.

You are making an argument about the free agents who have been brought in, but using the picks used in a trade as your argument. You can't have it both ways.

The trade for McNabb makes us instantly competitive, if he has even a modest improvement in pass pro. How does that prevent us from building for the future?

The presence of 2 additional free agent running backs carry no cost to our ability to build for the future.

The presence of a free agent guard carrys no cost to our ability to build for the future.

Countertrey wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Deadskins is dead on. With the exception of McNabb, all of the vets acquired this year have been free agents on short term contracts in a cap free year. They have virtually no cost in our current or future ability to build through the draft. This means that they permit the team to build to compete now AND build to compete in the future.

I'm not excluding the two draft picks we've traded away so far, though.

Those were for McNabb... and have NO bearing on the other players, who have all been free agents.

You are making an argument about the free agents who have been brought in, but using the picks used in a trade as your argument. You can't have it both ways.

The trade for McNabb makes us instantly competitive, if he has even a modest improvement in pass pro. How does that prevent us from building for the future?

The presence of 2 additional free agent running backs carry no cost to our ability to build for the future.

The presence of a free agent guard carrys no cost to our ability to build for the future.

I was attempting to not turn this in to another McNabb thread, but you're right.

These Rbs are stopgap and FA, I agree. And on the surface, in week1 at least, McNabb is an upgrade...until he gets hurt. And then after we trade JC, we have Grossman. I honestly don't believe that McNabb will play all 16 games this year. Even if we do address the line, there will be many hits on McNabb until the line gels, and that could take months. I would have preferred NOT to get McNabb at all and focus on the line more, but alas, I'm just a fan.

Countertrey wrote:Deadskins is dead on. With the exception of McNabb, all of the vets acquired this year have been free agents on short term contracts in a cap free year. They have virtually no cost in our current or future ability to build through the draft. This means that they permit the team to build to compete now AND build to compete in the future.

Exactly. Thanks for putting this in words in a much more succinct way. I've been trying to explain my opinion of the thinking behind the strategy.

I read that the Redskins are taking advantage of the uncapped year in a smart way - they are currently at 170 million if there was a cap this year. But, if a cap returns next year, given the estimate of that cap would be, the Skins would be close to 40 million dollars under the cap.

Why is that smart? Because a ton of young veterans (5 years in the league) became RFA's this year due to the CBA not being extended. Those guys will all hit the market next year, giving the Skins the ability to make better acquisitions to supplement the 2011 Draft.