BLOW IT UP!!

[SkinsFreak]

You can also point to all the statistics that you want, but when I think of elite NFL defenses I certainly don't think of ours. I think of the Steelers, Ravens, and Titans, aggressive teams that get after the qb and force turnovers. We are not at that level and wont be until we can generate a consistent pass rush.

Well, the Steelers and Ravens ranked 1st and 2nd respectfully in total defense. The Titans ranked 7th, three spots lower than the 4th ranked Skins. Just because your "favorite" ( ) team doesn't come to your mind when thinking of elite defenses, the numbers prove otherwise and can't be discounted.

So do you think that the Skins had a better defense than Tennessee this past season?

I do.

Agreed. Are there positions where the Titans have better talent? Sure. But the numbers prove the Skins defense was better from an overall perspective. Additionally, looking at the compared schedules, the Skins played against better offenses.

[DarthMonk]

I'd love to blow it up. It would hurt more than it would help. There are a lot of coaches and GMs that would never touch this team because we can stick to a plan for more than a season or two. The dead cap would burn us heavily if we cut as many players as some suggest. If you want to play with nothing but rookies, undrafted rookies, and lose most of the season then I could see that. I could actually go for that. But . . . . who else would be able to stomach a 4-12 season?

I would cheer for a young team while it lost if I could do so knowing that we were being smart about our long-term future. Weren't we very recently 5-11 under the current method of player acquisition? If we can do that with young blood while gathering massive cap space ... why not?

Look, let's suppose we tinker, pay a few more huge contracts, squeeze in under the cap, everything breaks right for us, we make the playoffs, and win a post-season game or two. Where are we then? One year older and fighting to get under the cap again.

I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see. And we might not even suck. How much did Springs play? How about Daniels? When Portis made big gainers wasn't it because of giant holes Mason could have run through. Did we play our best defense without Jason Taylor? Those 2 picks and that 8.5 million would be nice to have.

Of course, it's all a dream anyway.

VC: "We have a plan."

DarthMonk

[Bob 0119]

We were also more recently 9-7 and 8-8 respectively under the current plan.

[DarthMonk]

We were also more recently 9-7 and 8-8 respectively under the current plan.

Yes ... and 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10, 10-6, and 5-11 as well and where are we? Old. Cap-room-less. Virtually pickless. In street clothes collecting paychecks. I wonder if we could go 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10, 10-6, 5-11, 9-7, and 8-8 with some young guys.

DarthMonk

[DarthMonk]

If you guys take anything from the SB. Please take the fact that the best "Team" won. The team with the "Star WRs" did not. That’s because it’s not about Stars. The Steelers play for each other.

An interesting example. Of course we would keep a few vets to "groom" others as you say. You think 25 to 35 vets is enough? I do - particularly the ones who actually play for their paychecks and who also aren't the reason we are strapped for cap room.

I posted to a Pitt forum and asked about their style. Here is a partial list I got from them of people they did not resign recently:


*
Antwan Randel EL
Plaxico Burress
Chris Hope
Clark Haggans
Joey Porter

Just to name a few of the recent players we didn't resign when they became free agents. There's a lot more if you want to go back to the entire Cowher era.

Lloyd
Kirkland
Troy Edwards
John Jackson
Charles Johnson
Barry Foster
Bam Morris
Ericc Pegram
Eric Greene
Mark Bruener
Neil Odonnel
Earl Holmes
Jason Gildon
Joel Steed
Dermontti Dawson (injury problems late in his career)
*

Many of these names are HUGE! Yet the Steelers don't seem to suffer (as you said) from lack of "team." We don't have too either. Are Portis and Taylor really good for our team spirit? One of them is forever "gaffing" on the radio about how good he'd be with a decent line while the other has been with us for all of a year and was almost certainly no more effective than any rookie would have been.

There is also a lot to be said for simple youthful enthusiasm and hunger.

DarthMonk

[Bob 0119]

Well, if ya wanna dance with numbers, I'll play.

Gibbs went 6-10, 10-6, 5-11, and 9-7. By pattern, we would have gone 4-12, 8-8, 3-13, 7-9, 2-14, 6-10 if he hadn't retired.

Zorn stepped in and went 8-8 in a pattern that should have been 4-12. So, if Zorn's figures run the same as Gibbs figures, than we should be 16-0 next year!

I know what you're asking yourself. How in the world would Gibbs' figures be relavent to Zorn's success?

I know, I asked myself the same thing.

To point at this "current system's" failures from two years ago seemed to be a bit of a stretch for me today as well. That's why I pointed out that the past two years were BETTER than the 5-11 season they had two years ago.

It has no bearing on what they do today, or even tomorrow. Sure they could go 0-16, though that is as likely as them going 16-0 (that's why the Lions were the first to do it last year).

For all I know, the team could go 5-11 next year, but it will be a different team, with a different coach that had nothing to do with the 5-11 record from before.

[fleetus]

Marty came here. Payroll was a then-record 100 MILLION dollars. Marty kept 22 guys. He replaced 31. 13 of the new guys were ROOKIES. He FIRED VINNY. He reduced payroll to 53 MILLION by letting go of almost all the high priced talent (can you say Deion?).

We went 0-5 and then 8-3 the rest of the way with TONY BANKS at QB.

We need to do this again. Let go of (release, trade, whatever makes sense) virtually every high priced guy. Accumulate compensatory picks. Pick LINEMEN. Find a runner. They are everywhere. If the hole is there Rock or Betts or some other guy (did we cut a guy named Mason?) we never heard of who costs less than 1 million can run through it and if it's not there he can slam it up in there for a yard or two. We should NEVER spend big bucks or 1st round picks on a runner.

Many teams have shown us we could be better than we are now in TWO years while getting YOUNGER and CHEAPER.

DarthMonk

I agree with you for the most part. Although, maybe not to the drastic level you suggest. but we do need to nearly start over with the O-line, WR corps, LB's (except Fletcher), D-line, K and P. So, I could see moving about 12-15 players out of there or at least offering them a reduced salary to stay.

But, can we wait to do this until after the 2009 season? I mean, with only 4 picks, how much rebuilding can we do? Let's offer some players a reduced salary to stay. Then give everyone a one year ultimatum that they will be gone based on their 2009 performance. Hopefully we can keep all of our 2010 picks and trade a couple of players, out of a group of Springs, ARE, A. Carter, J. Taylor, Portis, T.Collins, for a couple additional picks.

[DarthMonk]

Not quite sure what you're getting at below (quoted post). I wasn't really doing any kind of "dance" with the numbers. They are simply Snyder era W-L records and except for a year with Marty I think we've used the current player acquisition plan the whole time - not just 2 years ... and where are we? We are an old 8-8 team that can oscillate from 5-11 to 10-6 depending on the breaks. We can be that same team without being old and capped out. And if we build for the future we can maybe be a 10-6 team that can oscillate between 7-9 and 12-4 depending on the breaks.

I wasn't trying to point out any pattern - just showing what we have been and what we are are under the way Danny and Vinnie do it. Do you think they do it well? I don't. (They cap out well and they do a good job of spending picks on people who don't play)

Wouldn't it be great if we thought "we are close" because we actually were and at the same time actually had the financial wherewithal to go get a key game changer as opposed to being what we are, thinking "we are close" and constantly tryng massage the cap so we can overpay to plug holes so we can remain the aging 8-8 oscillator?

Again, I for one, am perfectly willing to suck for a few years in the interests of long-term prosperity ... and what I propose may not even imply sucking.

And yes, as you say, a 5-11 record next year would have nothing to do with an earlier 5-11 under another coach ... I never said it would. BUT ... both those 5-11 records WOULD have something to do with the way we acquire players.

DarthMonk

Well, if ya wanna dance with numbers, I'll play.

Gibbs went 6-10, 10-6, 5-11, and 9-7. By pattern, we would have gone 4-12, 8-8, 3-13, 7-9, 2-14, 6-10 if he hadn't retired.

Zorn stepped in and went 8-8 in a pattern that should have been 4-12. So, if Zorn's figures run the same as Gibbs figures, than we should be 16-0 next year!

I know what you're asking yourself. How in the world would Gibbs' figures be relavent to Zorn's success?

I know, I asked myself the same thing.

To point at this "current system's" failures from two years ago seemed to be a bit of a stretch for me today as well. That's why I pointed out that the past two years were BETTER than the 5-11 season they had two years ago.

It has no bearing on what they do today, or even tomorrow. Sure they could go 0-16, though that is as likely as them going 16-0 (that's why the Lions were the first to do it last year).

For all I know, the team could go 5-11 next year, but it will be a different team, with a different coach that had nothing to do with the 5-11 record from before.

[SkinsFreak]

I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see.

Except you don’t want to over-compensate. Why would you want to be 30-40 million under the cap every year? What’s the purpose of that? If the short answer is to have money to re-sign current players, that’s valid. But I don’t think the Redskins have ever been forced to release a good player solely due to not being able to afford him. I’m not sure I’d ever want to be 30-40 million under the cap. That would mean you’ve left money on the table that could have been used to upgrade a particular unit on your team. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to be $0.02 under either.

You’ve been hitting slices into the woods all day long, so you drastically change your stance, over-compensate, and now you’re duck-hooking it into the lake. You can’t over-compensate. I think some fans are so gun-shy about signing a free agent that you want to stop the practice altogether.

Free agency is a legitimate and strategic way to upgrade your team and is now widely practiced around the entire landscape of the NFL. However, and I think this is the part that some Skins fans get carried away with, is that free agent signings don’t automatically guarantee a Super Bowl. Even good draft choices don’t guarantee anything. You’d hope that particular unit would improve, but to think that it should guarantee anything is not logical. In a team sport, there are other, equally important units that have to pull their weight and execute for the entire team to be successful.

The Cowboys are a perfect example. Jerry Jones has tried to sign and trade for damn near every top player he can get his hands on. They’ve even had some very good draft choices. Yet it hasn’t resulted in a single post-season victory in well over a decade.

Whether or not a draft choice or free agent signing actually pans out can't be accurately foretasted, it's simply part of the game, for every team. If you simply recognize ahead of time that not every draft choice or free agent signing will pan out or guarantee a Super Bowl, then you have a better understanding of the game and what FO’s around the league deal with every year.

Having said that, you can change your approach without drastically changing your stance and over-compensating. For example, stop giving huge contracts to ‘past their prime’ free agents. Perhaps more incentive laden contracts that aren’t always back-end loaded. Point being, change your approach, but don’t quite altogether.

I pretty much agree with releasing some of the high priced, past their prime, non-contributing vets in the spirit of getting younger. I also agree that a philosophy change is needed, especially from the perspective of always trading away draft picks. You can still emphasis the draft while grabbing a few free agents at the same time.

I think there's pretty solid evidence that Gibbs and Williams have been running the show for during Gibbs' era. Since Gibbs retired and Vinny was promoted, I believe its clear 2008 was really Vinny's first opportunity to be the guy. I actually think he did fairly well with the draft and they stayed quite in free agency the past two years. Therefore, I think they're already in somewhat of a rebuilding process and a philosophy change, evidenced by ten rookies making the opening day 53-man roster and staying quite in free agency. Hopefully they’ll stay the course, and I agree this is a big test for the FO.

[DarthMonk]

I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see.

Except you don’t want to over-compensate. Why would you want to be 30-40 million under the cap every year? What’s the purpose of that? If the short answer is to have money to re-sign current players, that’s valid. But I don’t think the Redskins have ever been forced to release a good player solely due to not being able to afford him. I’m not sure I’d ever want to be 30-40 million under the cap. That would mean you’ve left money on the table that could have been used to upgrade a particular unit on your team. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to be $0.02 under either.

I'm talking 2 years bro - not being that far under year after year. I never even hinted at being that far under every year. I'm talking about having a lot of picks and actually having the money to sign them and a game changer - as opposed to wiggling under the cap somehow every year. The vast majority of what you said makes sense but again - I'm talking about making the franchise healthy in a few years and improving long term viability. I simply would rather be in the position I am quoted as supporting than the position we are in now and have been in for years.

And being that far under does not mean you left money on the table. It means you took huge cap hits for a year of cuts and now you have the reward of being way under. Again, Marty took payroll from 100 mil (that high due to Deion-like cuts) down to 53 mil. That's what we had heading into the next season. We clearly misused the excellent position Marty left us in.

DarthMonk

[fleetus]

I think there's pretty solid evidence that Gibbs and Williams have been running the show for during Gibbs' era. Since Gibbs retired and Vinny was promoted, I believe its clear 2008 was really Vinny's first opportunity to be the guy. I actually think he did fairly well with the draft and they stayed quite in free agency the past two years. Therefore, I think they're already in somewhat of a rebuilding process and a philosophy change, evidenced by ten rookies making the opening day 53-man roster and staying quite in free agency. Hopefully they’ll stay the course, and I agree this is a big test for the FO.

I agree that Vinny shouldn't be judged completely based on the Gibbs era. he was a smaller part of the decision making process then and should only be partly to blame. Last year was a very nice off-season and I continue to credit Vinny with a job well done. EXCEPT, that really bad decision to trade for jason taylor. Go back and look at my numerous posts right when that happened and all the fans were talking about how good JT was going to be and how we "finally had our pass rusher". i repeatedly said, JT,a 240# 3-4 hybrid does not fit our scheme unless we change to a hybrid defense where you move JT around like an OLB. Line him up as 4-3 DE on one play, move him to the opposite side OLB on the next play etc. We didn't do that all year. Now is that Vinny's fault for getting him? Well, maybe for the 2nd round price we paid. But you gotta wonder how the conversation went between Snyder, Zorn, Vinny and Blache. Why would Blache think that JT could be effective if he was just going to be a super lightweight LE?

Anyway, i hope we can keep it quiet again this off-season and find some key role players and maybe trade a couple of the older, overpayed players away for middle round draft picks.

[SkinsFreak]

I'm talking 2 years bro - not being that far under year after year. I never even hinted at being that far under every year. I'm talking about having a lot of picks and actually having the money to sign them and a game changer - as opposed to wiggling under the cap somehow every year.

If I misunderstood your sentence I quoted, my bad. I agree with keeping your draft picks, but again, I don't think we've ever been a position of not being able to sign them due to cap restraints. I also agree with releasing past their prime vets that are taking up large amounts of cap space due to their back-end loaded contracts. But freeing up the money to be used, not to be stuffed in a pocket and forgotten about. I understand that wasn't your idea, but it seems that way for many other fans here.

And being that far under does not mean you left money on the table. It means you took huge cap hits for a year of cuts and now you have the reward of being way under.

What are the rewards of being that far under the cap? To sign more free agents?

[PulpExposure]

I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see.

Except you don’t want to over-compensate. Why would you want to be 30-40 million under the cap every year? What’s the purpose of that? If the short answer is to have money to re-sign current players, that’s valid. But I don’t think the Redskins have ever been forced to release a good player solely due to not being able to afford him. I’m not sure I’d ever want to be 30-40 million under the cap. That would mean you’ve left money on the table that could have been used to upgrade a particular unit on your team. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to be $0.02 under either.

I'm talking 2 years bro - not being that far under year after year. I never even hinted at being that far under every year. I'm talking about having a lot of picks and actually having the money to sign them and a game changer - as opposed to wiggling under the cap somehow every year. The vast majority of what you said makes sense but again - I'm talking about making the franchise healthy in a few years and improving long term viability. I simply would rather be in the position I am quoted as supporting than the position we are in now and have been in for years.

And being that far under does not mean you left money on the table. It means you took huge cap hits for a year of cuts and now you have the reward of being way under. Again, Marty took payroll from 100 mil (that high due to Deion-like cuts) down to 53 mil. That's what we had heading into the next season. We clearly misused the excellent position Marty left us in.

DarthMonk

You know, DarthMonk, we could do this, and end up like the 49ers. Lots of cap room, sign a big name free agent every year (Nate Clements, Justin Smith), and draft a lot of picks.

And be even worse than the Redskins.

Just sayin'. It isn't as if this approach hasn't been tried before

[Skinsfan55]

We just need a really smart approach to this offseason, we need a plan and we need to follow through with it...

I'm scared that if we have a 9-7 season then Zorn wil be fired in favor of Shanahan, Cowher, Edwards, Gruden, etc. etc.

We need a good season but a lot of things need to fall into place... we need a good draft (only 4 picks!), we need some free agent depth, we need strong QB play etc. etc.

[SkinsJock]

We just need a really smart approach to this offseason, we need a plan and we need to follow through with it...

We need a good season but a lot of things need to fall into place... we need a good draft (only 4 picks!), we need some free agent depth, we need strong QB play etc. etc.

You lost me at "a really smart approach ...... "

Where have you been? You obviously haven't been paying attention - we are NOT that team

[RayNAustin]

But here we are, now two years removed from when Gibbs was in complete control. Griffin is DONE. Springs is DONE. Taylor, unfortunately, did not work out, and I don't think he will. Moss is not likely to regain much form. Marcus Washington is likely done. Jansen is DONE. One of our two guards is likely done. If Fletcher plays another year at a high level we will be very lucky. We will not ride Clinton Portis to the Superbowl the way the Cardinals rode Fitzgerald; he will be a role player, not a superstar.

Most of these guys I just listed were good enough 2-3 years ago to be a part of a Superbowl team. All of them have lost their edge, and in this league—a game of inches, after all—that's all it takes to go from playoff contender, to 8-8 mediocrity, to a 4-12 we-need-help-badly kind of team.

Aside from our two best offensive weapons in Portis and Moss, most of the guys you listed were on the number 4 ranked defense overall, and 6th in points allowed in the NFL. This is especially impressive given the lack of help this defense received from a woefully impotent offense for the majority of the year (from week 6 to the end).

To illustrate the point, of the final 10 games last year we scored 14 or fewer points in 7 of them. So your answer is we keep firmly on board with Jason Campbell, and get rid of the rest of the team?

Given the Redskins cap issues and lack of draft picks, it is insanity to even mention what is needed on defense when just an mildly decent functioning offense would have resulted in a 12-4 season and probably the NFC East title.

Yeah, let's keep Campbell and get rid of the other 52 players. That's the answer.

[Irn-Bru]

Aside from our two best offensive weapons in Portis and Moss, most of the guys you listed were on the number 4 ranked defense overall, and 6th in points allowed in the NFL. This is especially impressive given the lack of help this defense received from a woefully impotent offense for the majority of the year (from week 6 to the end).

I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone. Also take note that I specifically mentioned 3/5ths of our offensive line, and frankly I should have put Rabach on there, too.

(1) What more do you want me to say about the offense, and (2) are you suggesting that the defensive players I mentioned aren't done?

So your answer is we keep firmly on board with Jason Campbell, and get rid of the rest of the team?

No. I am, I think, a little more patient with JC's progress than other THN members, but I am ready to call for his removal if he has another season without showing much progress.

Given the Redskins cap issues and lack of draft picks, it is insanity to even mention what is needed on defense when just an mildly decent functioning offense would have resulted in a 12-4 season and probably the NFC East title.

I suppose that's possible, but I wouldn't be able to say that as confidently as you. For example, I am in agreement with SkinsCanes that our lack of QB pressure was a HUGE problem this year and could be worse next year, unless we do something about it.

Yeah, let's keep Campbell and get rid of the other 52 players. That's the answer.

Whose answer is that?

[DarthMonk]

What are the rewards of being that far under the cap? To sign more free agents?

Flexibility - but yes. It would be so nice to actually be young and close and have the ability to go after a game changer without all this "restructure" crap we go through every year.

Oh, and when you did have to let someone go, the big cap hit wouldn't be crippling.

DarthMonk

[DarthMonk]

You know, DarthMonk, we could do this, and end up like the 49ers. Lots of cap room, sign a big name free agent every year (Nate Clements, Justin Smith), and draft a lot of picks.

And be even worse than the Redskins.

Just sayin'. It isn't as if this approach hasn't been tried before

You are right - we could. In fact, with current ownership we most likely would - but of course, with current ownership we are not likely to try anyway.

Or we could just be like we have been for 10 more years.

Or we could end up like the Steelers - or somewhere in between. You know, the 49ers could be the one that comes out of nowhere next year - or we could.

As for this approach being tried before - Marty tried with us and got fired. All he did was go 8-8 without a QB (Banks) with 22 hold overs and 31 new guys including 13 rookies. San Diego gave him an extra year but 14-2 with a loss to the Pats after a corner fumbled when trying to run after a game icing pick wasn't good enough. Danny and Vinnie loved the 40 mill under the cap Marty left them - of course, they wasted it. The Steelers have used this approach for forever (this approach being release FAs who want "too much", stockpile draft picks, pick linemen and linebackers, develop people, and sign the occasional "need').

Anyway, all a pipe dream, I'm afraid. I will stay tuned and hope for the best.

It's been a great discussion.

DarthMonk

[El Mexican]

Yep, we were on the right track there for a while with Marty, specially the last fives games the team won with IDENTITY.

Since then, except for occasional spurts, I havent seen something similar with the team.

[fleetus]

But here we are, now two years removed from when Gibbs was in complete control. Griffin is DONE. Springs is DONE. Taylor, unfortunately, did not work out, and I don't think he will. Moss is not likely to regain much form. Marcus Washington is likely done. Jansen is DONE. One of our two guards is likely done. If Fletcher plays another year at a high level we will be very lucky. We will not ride Clinton Portis to the Superbowl the way the Cardinals rode Fitzgerald; he will be a role player, not a superstar.

Most of these guys I just listed were good enough 2-3 years ago to be a part of a Superbowl team. All of them have lost their edge, and in this league—a game of inches, after all—that's all it takes to go from playoff contender, to 8-8 mediocrity, to a 4-12 we-need-help-badly kind of team.

Aside from our two best offensive weapons in Portis and Moss, most of the guys you listed were on the number 4 ranked defense overall, and 6th in points allowed in the NFL. This is especially impressive given the lack of help this defense received from a woefully impotent offense for the majority of the year (from week 6 to the end).

To illustrate the point, of the final 10 games last year we scored 14 or fewer points in 7 of them. So your answer is we keep firmly on board with Jason Campbell, and get rid of the rest of the team?

Given the Redskins cap issues and lack of draft picks, it is insanity to even mention what is needed on defense when just an mildly decent functioning offense would have resulted in a 12-4 season and probably the NFC East title.

Yeah, let's keep Campbell and get rid of the other 52 players. That's the answer.

Good point. Yes the "D" is getting older and we need to add some youthful depth at almost every defensive position, but all the off-season work needs to be concentrated on the offense. OL first, WR second, QB competition third.

[PulpExposure]

I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone.

ARE will be back.

Also, DE Andre Carter and WR Randle El have new deals with the team, according to league sources, a move done to lower their 2009 cap costs (the Redskins entered this month between $5-$7 million over the projected salary cap). Both players had deals set to expire after 2012; their new contracts run through 2015 (not that it's likely either would still be here then).

Carter's new deal saves the team about $2.4 million in 2009, and lowers his case salary from $2 million to $1.5 million. Randle El's new deal saves $2 million in cap space for next season, and lowers his base salary from $4 million to $1.5 million according to sources.

[VetSkinsFan]

I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone.

ARE will be back.

Also, DE Andre Carter and WR Randle El have new deals with the team, according to league sources, a move done to lower their 2009 cap costs (the Redskins entered this month between $5-$7 million over the projected salary cap). Both players had deals set to expire after 2012; their new contracts run through 2015 (not that it's likely either would still be here then).

Carter's new deal saves the team about $2.4 million in 2009, and lowers his case salary from $2 million to $1.5 million. Randle El's new deal saves $2 million in cap space for next season, and lowers his base salary from $4 million to $1.5 million according to sources.

Carter's production is going to be directly affected by what we do with our D line. We don't address it, then he'll suffer. He's not a premiere D-lineman, but if you forget about him, he can make you pay.

I like ARE in slot/4th WR, just not a starter. As long as he doesn't do PR duties and start, I'm content with him on the team.

[PulpExposure]

I mentioned Portis and Moss, but there are other skill players who I didn't mention (ARE, Rock, Thrash) that I am assuming will be gone.

ARE will be back.

Also, DE Andre Carter and WR Randle El have new deals with the team, according to league sources, a move done to lower their 2009 cap costs (the Redskins entered this month between $5-$7 million over the projected salary cap). Both players had deals set to expire after 2012; their new contracts run through 2015 (not that it's likely either would still be here then).

Carter's new deal saves the team about $2.4 million in 2009, and lowers his case salary from $2 million to $1.5 million. Randle El's new deal saves $2 million in cap space for next season, and lowers his base salary from $4 million to $1.5 million according to sources.

Carter's production is going to be directly affected by what we do with our D line. We don't address it, then he'll suffer. He's not a premiere D-lineman, but if you forget about him, he can make you pay.

I like ARE in slot/4th WR, just not a starter. As long as he doesn't do PR duties and start, I'm content with him on the team.

I like Carter a lot, actually. I like him resigning.

I'm not sure it's smart to resign ARE and pay him...to be a slot/4th receiver.

[Irn-Bru]

He's a $4 million dollar slot/4th receiver in 2009, if that's what we re-signed him to be.