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

jdubya wrote:Your assessment was based on the links you posted?

In part, but I obviously had more to say than posting links. That was one piece of a larger argument.

Rogers was mentioned here and there, but I did not see a glowing report on him in each one of those.

He is not a game changer. Springs is.

Neither of those was the actual point I was getting at. So, you haven't addressed what I was saying, and now the argument has been obfuscated further.

I think I've been pretty clear about what I'm arguing, and yet every time you come back and attack something I never claimed. (In fact, I'm not sure that you see that I agree with several of the arguments you keep bringing up. Although, Springs being a "game changer" ain't one of them, though. . .) I think I've been accurately representing your posts and dealing with them. But until we can at least discuss what I actually said, there's no way this will go forward. And I'm not sure how to make myself more clear so that you will take on the substance of my argument.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

Countertrey wrote:It's, indeed, unfortunate that you completely missed the fine point that Welch was making... which is that the great DG did not have the greatest of hands, either.

Actually, he had a much better point than that. But as for your point, saying that "good hands is not a requirement for being a good corner" is indeed similar to saying "fast feet are not a requirement for being a good quarterback." Just as statement B does not prove that Patrick Ramsey is or will ever be a good quarterback, statement A does not prove that Carlos Rogers is or will ever be a good corner. That's not to say Carlos is or isn't, just that it doesn't offer proof.

Countertrey wrote:Welch is also NOT underestimating Green's hands, as the statement comes from Green himself.

I suspect that Green was being humble and a bit self-deprecating, and was in fact underestimating his own hands. I agree that it was the weak point of his game, but his hands were far from made of stone.

Suspect all you want... DG never had any problem talking up his speed, so I rather suspect that self-depreciation does not enter into it... While Green was humble off the field, on the field he was about confidence in his skills and abilities, just as any other great cornerback is. They live or die with the skills they bring to the table. Green had no problem in baiting opponents to throw his way.

Additionally, DG was not the only one to note that his hands were suspect. It was well known... The diggest difference was that Green was so good in coverage, once he had mastered his game, that he created many more opportunities for himself to touch the ball.


Think about it... You're Joe Gibbs (despite the myths, Gibbs was not above occasional trickery). You have the fastest man in the NFL on your team. He has moves that are unsurpassed in the league. You are loaded with skilled wide-outs, so it's impossible to double anybody on a consistent basis... This is a circumstance that is tailor made for a player like this. But you never take the opportunity to use him on offense???? Why would that be??? You know the answer.

Countertrey wrote:Think about it... You're Joe Gibbs (despite the myths, Gibbs was not above occasional trickery). You have the fastest man in the NFL on your team. He has moves that are unsurpassed in the league. You are loaded with skilled wide-outs, so it's impossible to double anybody on a consistent basis... This is a circumstance that is tailor made for a player like this. But you never take the opportunity to use him on offense???? Why would that be??? You know the answer.

I know the answer. Because he didn't have to.

Gibbs had three elite NFL wide receivers, a couple decent pass catching tight ends, two or three starting quality tailbacks... Why on Earth would you slide Green over to offense and risk him getting hurt? Sure, he's fast, but he was also short and would have to severely fool someone to get far enough separation to make a deep pass play work.

It just wasn't a smart gamble. Just like using Champ Bailey as a WR wasn't really given much of a try. Why risk hurting a star player when it wasn't really needed?

Skinsfan55 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Think about it... You're Joe Gibbs (despite the myths, Gibbs was not above occasional trickery). You have the fastest man in the NFL on your team. He has moves that are unsurpassed in the league. You are loaded with skilled wide-outs, so it's impossible to double anybody on a consistent basis... This is a circumstance that is tailor made for a player like this. But you never take the opportunity to use him on offense???? Why would that be??? You know the answer.

I know the answer. Because he didn't have to.

Gibbs had three elite NFL wide receivers, a couple decent pass catching tight ends, two or three starting quality tailbacks... Why on Earth would you slide Green over to offense and risk him getting hurt? Sure, he's fast, but he was also short and would have to severely fool someone to get far enough separation to make a deep pass play work.




It just wasn't a smart gamble. Just like using Champ Bailey as a WR wasn't really given much of a try. Why risk hurting a star player when it wasn't really needed?

For the SAME reason you'd use him to return punts (which, OBTW, carries a MUCH greater risk of injury). Because you need to make something happen.

but he was also short

Hmmm... I wonder why all those receivers were called "Smurfs"?

Countertrey wrote:Think about it... You're Joe Gibbs (despite the myths, Gibbs was not above occasional trickery). You have the fastest man in the NFL on your team. He has moves that are unsurpassed in the league. You are loaded with skilled wide-outs, so it's impossible to double anybody on a consistent basis... This is a circumstance that is tailor made for a player like this. But you never take the opportunity to use him on offense???? Why would that be??? You know the answer.

Did you even read my post? Before Sanders was brought in, the plan was to use to Green on offense.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Think about it... You're Joe Gibbs (despite the myths, Gibbs was not above occasional trickery). You have the fastest man in the NFL on your team. He has moves that are unsurpassed in the league. You are loaded with skilled wide-outs, so it's impossible to double anybody on a consistent basis... This is a circumstance that is tailor made for a player like this. But you never take the opportunity to use him on offense???? Why would that be??? You know the answer.

Did you even read my post? Before Sanders was brought in, the plan was to use to Green on offense.

And, before Charlie Brown? And before Clark?

There is a difference between Ricky Sanders fast, and Darrell Green fast.

I'm just telling you what Casserly said. You don't want to believe it, that's fine; Casserly is far from a prophet. Charlie Brown left the team following the 1984 season, and the Redskins were lacking a bit of explosiveness on the offensive side of the ball in 1985.

The talk of using Green on offense occurred between the 1985 and 1986 season, which would have been after Green's third year. Like welch said, it took a couple seasons for Green to fully learn the NFL position, so it makes sense that they didn't want to use him on the other side of the ball until he was completely established on defense.

The USFL folded and Ricky Sanders was brought in for the 1986 season. With three true weapons at wideout, there was no need to risk hurting Green on offense, and the plans were scrapped.

But whatever, this isn't really relevant. You think Green's catching ability is the same as Rogers', I think Green was better. In the end, it has little bearing on the current cornerback situation. I think it's time to agree to disagree.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:I'm just telling you what Casserly said. You don't want to believe it, that's fine; Casserly is far from a prophet. Charlie Brown left the team following the 1984 season, and the Redskins were lacking a bit of explosiveness on the offensive side of the ball in 1985.

The talk of using Green on offense occurred between the 1985 and 1986 season, which would have been after Green's third year. Like welch said, it took a couple seasons for Green to fully learn the NFL position, so it makes sense that they didn't want to use him on the other side of the ball until he was completely established on defense.

The USFL folded and Ricky Sanders was brought in for the 1986 season. With three true weapons at wideout, there was no need to risk hurting Green on offense, and the plans were scrapped.

But whatever, this isn't really relevant. You think Green's catching ability is the same as Rogers', I think Green was better. In the end, it has little bearing on the current cornerback situation. I think it's time to agree to disagree.

True... done.

Irn-Bru wrote:

jdubya wrote:Your assessment was based on the links you posted?

In part, but I obviously had more to say than posting links. That was one piece of a larger argument.

Rogers was mentioned here and there, but I did not see a glowing report on him in each one of those.

He is not a game changer. Springs is.

Neither of those was the actual point I was getting at. So, you haven't addressed what I was saying, and now the argument has been obfuscated further.

I think I've been pretty clear about what I'm arguing, and yet every time you come back and attack something I never claimed. (In fact, I'm not sure that you see that I agree with several of the arguments you keep bringing up. Although, Springs being a "game changer" ain't one of them, though. . .) I think I've been accurately representing your posts and dealing with them. But until we can at least discuss what I actually said, there's no way this will go forward. And I'm not sure how to make myself more clear so that you will take on the substance of my argument.

According to your lengthy post with the game recap links, your argument is that he has gotten better over time. I get that.

He is better at coverage than he was 2 years ago.

However, he has NOT gotten better in one key area. THe one that matters most, when it comes to the secondary of any football team.

He is not a shutdown corner. But even aside from that, he is not a ball hawk. Hell, the guy can't catch the stuff thrown in his numbers. He has not improved in this category in 4 years.

If you watched the Raisins game today, you saw what a difference takeways make. We will never have a seondary like that with rogers in the mix.

The fact that some people are even attempting to compare Carlos to Darrell Green with regard to anything is humorous.

Green had two things that Rogers lacks:

Speed

Heart

jdubya wrote:The fact that some people are even attempting to compare Carlos to Darrell Green with regard to anything is humorous.

Green had two things that Rogers lacks:

Speed

Heart

And, clearly, you haven't been reading.

I have read everything posted.

jdubya wrote:I have read everything posted.

So, do you have a problem with setting Darrell Green as the standard by which all Redskins Cornerbacks are measured?

I'm usually very critical of the decisions that Snyder and Vinny make with regard to player personnel, but the idea of trading Rogers (assuming that Hall re-signs) actually makes sense. For starters, it doesn't appear that the Skins and Rogers are on the same page in terms of his ability/value. Rogers' recent comments make it clear that he views himself as one of the top corners in the league. The Skins, who had him coming off the bench after they acquired Hall, apparently don't consider him to be elite or they wouldn't have had him coming off the bench. Given that, it's very likely that the Skins aren't going to want to pay him the kind of money that he expects in his next contract. So if they don't expect to re-sign him to an extension then it makes sense to trade him if they can get sufficient value in return.

Although we need picks, lets not destroy our strength in one area to game in another.

Let's cut ties with Springs and resign Rogers. If he's as hot as he think he is, add in escalators based on interception counts.

Rogers will get better, he hasn't reached his ceiling and if we can provide him a pass rush, he and every other DB here will look 10x better.

CanesSkins26 wrote:I'm usually very critical of the decisions that Snyder and Vinny make with regard to player personnel, but the idea of trading Rogers (assuming that Hall re-signs) actually makes sense. For starters, it doesn't appear that the Skins and Rogers are on the same page in terms of his ability/value. Rogers' recent comments make it clear that he views himself as one of the top corners in the league. The Skins, who had him coming off the bench after they acquired Hall, apparently don't consider him to be elite or they wouldn't have had him coming off the bench. Given that, it's very likely that the Skins aren't going to want to pay him the kind of money that he expects in his next contract. So if they don't expect to re-sign him to an extension then it makes sense to trade him if they can get sufficient value in return.

The problem with trading rogers is that we don't have anyone who can start. Smoot gets burned too much/bites on routes. Rogers/Hall is still the best option we have. If you think Springs will be healthy a full season, then please pass whatever hallucinagens you're on.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:I'm usually very critical of the decisions that Snyder and Vinny make with regard to player personnel, but the idea of trading Rogers (assuming that Hall re-signs) actually makes sense. For starters, it doesn't appear that the Skins and Rogers are on the same page in terms of his ability/value. Rogers' recent comments make it clear that he views himself as one of the top corners in the league. The Skins, who had him coming off the bench after they acquired Hall, apparently don't consider him to be elite or they wouldn't have had him coming off the bench. Given that, it's very likely that the Skins aren't going to want to pay him the kind of money that he expects in his next contract. So if they don't expect to re-sign him to an extension then it makes sense to trade him if they can get sufficient value in return.

The problem with trading rogers is that we don't have anyone who can start. Smoot gets burned too much/bites on routes. Rogers/Hall is still the best option we have. If you think Springs will be healthy a full season, then please pass whatever hallucinagens you're on.

Of course I don't expect Springs to start all season. He is a walking injury. However, if the Skins don't think that Rogers is worth the type of money that he is going to want then they probably think that they can get someone of relatively equal ability for less money in free agency. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to tie up big money for two corners when your defensive line is garbage. Take Denver for example. They have two of the better corners in the NFL but they had one of the worst pass defenses in the NFL because they couldn't get to the qb. On the other hand you have the Giants. They have very average corners but their ability to rush the qb makes their pass defense one of the best in the NFL. If the Redskins trade Rogers and use the money that they would've paid him to upgrade the defensive line then I think that's a very smart move.

Trading requires a partner, and if the Skins can find good value for Rogers, such that finding a suitable replacement for him would be feasible, that sounds OK to me. The signs appear to be that the Redskins are looking to deal Rogers, so maybe this happens. Most likely, though, it won't. I doubt that there are many NFL teams who would consider Rogers a top corner. Then again, Buffalo thought Dockery was a top guard prospect, so it happens.

If it doesn't, though, I stand by my earlier argument that we're not going to get better for less $$$ than Springs is commanding next year. We have got to cut him. Deal with Rogers when his contract expires, but for this offseason we just need to manage our DBs while we take on the overhaul of our lines.

jdubya wrote:According to your lengthy post with the game recap links, your argument is that he has gotten better over time. I get that.

No, you still do not get the main argument I've made SEVERAL times. Yes, that Rogers has improved is one component of that larger argument. You have twice picked out small pieces of what I said but failed to put 2 and 2 together.

And until you do/can/whatever, I'm now done with this. I don't know if you're purposefully misrepresenting my argument or you really haven't seen it, but three back-and-forths without any sign of comprehension is enough for me.

If you watched the Raisins game today, you saw what a difference takeways make. We will never have a seondary like that with rogers in the mix.

Believe me, if the Ravens can have a secondary like that with Samari Rolle, we can DEFINITELY have a secondary like that with Carlos Rogers.

Irn-Bru wrote:Believe me, if the Ravens can have a secondary like that with Samari Rolle, we can DEFINITELY have a secondary like that with Carlos Rogers.

Amen. We just need a pass rush. Rogers will flourish, he'll get more chances to drop passes and potentially catch one.

It'd be a mistake to get rid of him. We can find a way to get and do anything we want, this is no different.

Irn-Bru wrote:Trading requires a partner, and if the Skins can find good value for Rogers, such that finding a suitable replacement for him would be feasible, that sounds OK to me. The signs appear to be that the Redskins are looking to deal Rogers, so maybe this happens. Most likely, though, it won't. I doubt that there are many NFL teams who would consider Rogers a top corner. Then again, Buffalo thought Dockery was a top guard prospect, so it happens.

If it doesn't, though, I stand by my earlier argument that we're not going to get better for less $$$ than Springs is commanding next year. We have got to cut him. Deal with Rogers when his contract expires, but for this offseason we just need to manage our DBs while we take on the overhaul of our lines.

It is entirely possible that this is part of a negotiating scenario... If a team offers a trade that truly benefits the skins, then they do it. If no team is willing to offer anything substantial for Rogers, then his salary position is weakened, and the team's strengthened. Either way, it has potential benefit. It's sort of what happened with Smoot... who found that the grass wasn't greener.

Irn-Bru wrote:

jdubya wrote:According to your lengthy post with the game recap links, your argument is that he has gotten better over time. I get that.

No, you still do not get the main argument I've made SEVERAL times. Yes, that Rogers has improved is one component of that larger argument. You have twice picked out small pieces of what I said but failed to put 2 and 2 together.

And until you do/can/whatever, I'm now done with this. I don't know if you're purposefully misrepresenting my argument or you really haven't seen it, but three back-and-forths without any sign of comprehension is enough for me.

If you watched the Raisins game today, you saw what a difference takeways make. We will never have a seondary like that with rogers in the mix.

Believe me, if the Ravens can have a secondary like that with Samari Rolle, we can DEFINITELY have a secondary like that with Carlos Rogers.

Come on man. You are trying too hard to be smart.

If all of these things you have posted, including the many small pieces of your larger argument, are directed at the fact that you think we should keep Rogers because there is no one else out there to play the position.....

Wow did I just waste my time.



It was very entertaining discussing this with you though.

Yeah, that was all I had to say. . .

your first post.

Irn-Bru wrote: but we're not going to get much better in the FA market.

In the end, I disagree with your analysis. There are plenty of better coverage guys in the NFL. There are also guys that can cover and create takeaways. Rogers thinks he is better than he is, and he is going to want more than he is worth if we keep him. Snyder will pay him too.

I will gladly pay SPrings for another year if we can get even moderate talent for Rogers.

If we cant get crap for him then so be it. But we have better talent than him on our own roster.

Look, I would love to be proved wrong in 2009. Have Rogers come out and be a beast, play 16 games, get a bunch of picks, and be the guy you think he is. I would be happy to be wrong.

I just don't see it though.

That is all I have to say about this.

We will not get anything worthwhile for Rogers. Plus we used a first round pick to get him.

The front office is probably just dangling the bait out there to see if there are any fish who will bite. The problem is whenever a team does this to a player he distances himself from the team and prepares to play elsewhere. How many times have we heard of players holding out just to get franchised and then the player causes havoc in the locker room.

I would rather reward Rogers for being a solid player. He had a good year, came back from a major injury and has been a part of the team since his rookie year. Reward him the contract he deserves.

Another huge hit we would take in the secondary if we let Rogers go. We should be going into next years draft with focus on fewer needs. We already have holes at the defensive line and offensive line. At least address those needs first.