Musing about Jerametrius Butler

The Redskins signed CB Jerametrius Butler yesterday.

Joe Gibbs tried to sign Butler in 2004. That was the first year of his return to Washington, when the Skins traded Champ Bailey to Denver for Clinton Portis. Bailey made clear that he wanted out, and the Skins brought in Shawn Springs as the shutdown corner.

Why bring in Butler when Fred Smoot was still on the roster? Was Butler seen as a potential replacement of Smoot? Smootie, as coach Joe calls him, was the core Redskin allowed to leave when his contract expired at the end of 2004. The Skins drafted Carlos Rogers in 2005. Now Rogers, Smoot and Butler are on the same team.

The Redskins front office played this smart by waiting for Butler's release by the Rams, rather than trying to work a trade. Maybe they (D. Snyder) learned a thing or two since the Mark Brunell trade and the excesses of 2006. Take note that nothing ever came of those rumors that the Redskins would nuke the front office. Perhaps instead they just dumped the foolish aggression in roster building that characterized the Snyder era. Hey, a man can change. And another man can hope.

Reasonable free-agent signings, hopefully smart draft picks and rational salary cap management are sound front office practices I hope continues. Skill at managing the cap should be secondary to skill at building a roster.

Jerametrius Butler Q&A

Photo: found on deadskin.com

Does anyone believe in the Redskins front office?

No.

In two years of blogging, reading a lot of football analysts and reporters, and scanning the views of a many, MANY excellent blogging Redskinologists, I have yet to see anyone knowledgeable, anywhere who endorsed the Redskins' "win now" approach to team development. Cindy Boren's guest blog on today's Redskins Insiders is only the latest salvo. Ben Folson's three part blast on The Curly R is another. Here at Running Redskins, six posts in April alone attacked various aspects of the Redskins' philosophy.

Ms. Boren fills in for Jason LaCanfora who is on vacation. Her story, titled The Danger of Kool-Aid.....without a GM, takes diehard fans to task. She starts with "I have seen a lot of people who seem to be blogging under the influence and I want to bring us all back to reality a little bit."

She goes on

only 6 of our 22 starters are above-average players. I'm a realist, I understand it's simply not possible to have the best players at every position. However, our biggest deficits are at the most important positions.

And more

"Our best young lineman left via FA and I understand he would have cost a mint this year, but how often do you see teams like the Patriots, Eagles, and Ravens let good young talent ever reach unrestricted free agency? [Emphasis mine] Any good GM would have seen that Dockery had started for us from day 1 of his career and that agile, young, durable, 335- pound linemen don't grow on trees and would have re-signed him before last season to a good extension for a reasonable figure. And let's not forget the utter lack of depth behind our starters for the last 3 years and the still lack of good young lineman being groomed to start one day."

Boren could have added that even if Dockery can be replaced by the likes of Todd Wade, we are(I am) invested in Dockery. He grew up on the team. We saw him grow. Doc's our guard. He belongs here. Why couldn't some of Brandon Lloyd's money have been thrown his way two years ago?

Boren concludes with

I cannot say it any simpler, we are a below average team and it is time we set our expectations accordingly. I am hoping for an 8-8 or 9-7 season.

Blah, blah, blah and yada yada yada. Excellent points, if a tad pessimistic, made many times before and falling on deaf ears where it counts.

The fan base hoped that Joe Gibbs would turn that wrong-headed approach around. He brought in some stalwarts in 2004 via the draft (Sean Taylor), free agents (Marcus Washington) and trade (Clinton Portis). In 2005, he traded for Santana Moss - a big hit that was - and drafted Jason Campbell and Carlos Rogers. But, 2006 brought excesses too painful to recall; evidence that Gibbs bit the fruit of the poisoned tree.

This year, in explaining why the Redskins did not draft a defensive lineman, the presidential coach said something about how better coverage would improve the pass rush by forcing the quarterback to hold the ball longer. That shows how much I know. I thought the idea was to pressure the QB to throw the ball sooner, before he was ready, to force mistakes. Give a QB more time, and they will make a big play. With today's timed offenses, maybe holding the ball longer is what you want. We'll see.

I'll tell you this. Gibb's "hold the ball longer" statement is Nixonian and Clintonesque in its breadth. You know the drill, "I am not a crook" and "I did not sleep with that woman." If Landry and Smoot and Fletcher-Baker don't lead to an improved pass rush this season, Gibbs could be another president hounded from office by a phrase.

Gibbs stands in good with The Lord. God, I hope that doesn't happen to him.

Photo: The Washington Post

The Warpath's Salary Cap Spreadsheet

Those clever folks at The Warpath fan board published a spreadsheet of the Washington Redskins salary cap. Among other interesting nuggets is the fact that the Redskins are carrying $8.2 Million in dead cap money, and that they are committed to $124.5 Million in player salaries for 2008. I'm not sure what the 2008 salary cap ceiling is, but I'll bet a quarter the Skins are over it.

I'm publishing the link here and adding it to the blogroll for future reference.

Redskins to nuke front office after the draft?

My blogging colleague at Hogs Haven has picked up rumblings that the Washington Redskins will bust a personnel move after the draft. He even names names: Bears assistant GM Bobby DePaul, and Bills assistant GM Tom Modrak. That's good sleuthing. Combined with an earlier rumor, reported here, that the Redskins are going to nuke the scouting department after the draft, I'm going to officially declare this as smoke. Where there's smoke, there's a flicker, maybe. "The game's afoot, Watson." Something's up.

How to reconcile all this with Boss Hog's firm statement that the Redskins never considered naming a GM after last season's fiasco? You can't name a GM right after the owner said "we did not consider a GM." No one who works for a living would be that dumb. Simple solution, you call him something else. Vice president of player personnel is available. Vinnie Cerrato is vp of football operations. Or, take a tip from the White House and call him an Implementation Czar.

Whatever the title, it's the background and role that's important. If - that's IF - this happens, I would hope the Redskins select someone who developed as a talent evaluator; that means hands on scout and player personnel experience. The man (it's always a man) should be connected in the NCAA world, for that whisper network that turns up undrafted prospects who can play. I hope he's been affiliated with at least two teams to bring best practices and another point of view. It would be ideal if his experience is with AFC and NFC clubs. They play different styles of football, and the AFC is the superior conference at the moment. I also hope that this background equips the guy to evaluate current NFL players and their contracts as thoroughly as are college players. (Why doesn't Mel Kiper evaluate NFL players as well as college draftees? The only organization I know of who independently ranks NFL players is EA Sports.)

It's the role that will make or break the move. Whatever you call him, if the personnel guy is unwanted by team president Joe Gibbs, he will fail. If the reporting structure isn't changed to give the personnel guy a real voice - real clout, then this will fail. We don't need another Vinnie. We need someone who can translate team needs into three alternative players, not just the best known star, and land him on a affordable contract. We need someone Gibbs respects and will listen to.

I can't see anyone coming who isn't fully supported by both Snyder and Gibbs. I can't see a top notch candidate accepting the position without some firm commitments about his role and understanding about his influence. An upgrade to front office personnel would be smart on Snyder's and Gibbs' part, on a par with the upgrade to the coaching staff with Al Saunders. Yes, I know Saunders and Gregg Williams didn't show well last season, but they remain the best minds in pro football. That's who you need to turn things around You need someone like that in the front office. You need a GM who gets talent and negotiates, really negotiates, the tough deals. (The Redskins negotiate by throwing draft picks into a deal until the other side surrenders.) You need a guy who can eventually step up to team president. More than players or coaches, a GM is the most important decision and owner makes. It should be the first decision an owner makes.

A GM by any other name would be a good start.

Photo: http://www.weaponsblog.org/

Daniel Snyder: GM is not the solution for the Washington Redskins

At the end of the fiasco that was the 2006 season, Joe Gibbs said the Washington Redskins would look at everything in an effort to turn things around. Owner Daniel Snyder was quick to say at yesterday's press conference that a general manager was not part of "everything." He felt badly for the fans following the team's 5-11 season, but did not see team structure as the cause for the on-field results.

Both Snyder and Gibbs recounted that aggressive player acquisition has been a Redskins trademark since the 1980s. They might have pointed out that Bobby Beathard and Charlie Casserly, GMs both, were orchestrating those moves.

Beathard spent 15 years as a scout and player personnel guy before being named Redskins GM in 1978. His teams went to three Super Bowls before he joined the Redskins. Snyder, in fact, almost lured Beathard out of retirement in 2002, until talks mysteriously broke down.

Casserly is remembered for starting his sports management career as an unpaid intern with the Redskins in 1977. He worked his way up as scout and assistant general manager until replacing Bobby Beathard as GM in 1989. That's a career span from the Over The Hill Gang through the Beathard-Gibbs I era. Snyder fired Casserly, only to admit later that "he fired the wrong guy."

Washington Post columnist Len Shapiro pointed out in a 2006 story that Gibbs was lured out of retirement with the promise of total control of the team. That's the same promise Snyder made to Marty Schottenheimer. It's a promise he'll keep to football icon Gibbs.

So the decision to bring in a GM really rests with Gibbs. I'm torn by that. I hold Gibbs in high regard. If mistakes are made, I want Gibbs, not Snyder, to make them. Let me make this point. A coaching career track doesn't prepare one to be a GM any better than a GM career track perpares one to be head coach. So, why the resistence to a GM?

Because, it just won't work.

Photo: Bobby Beathard, GM, www.profootballweekly.com

Grading Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder

A few days ago, I said I would not bash Daniel Snyder for awhile. I lied. Someone started a poll over at The Warpath Fan Forum asking readers to grade Daniel Snyder as owner of the Washington Redskins. Here's my response, grammatically improved:

D, maybe D+ for effort. Last year, when I thought he was mostly hands off and deferring to Gibbs, I would have given Snyder a gentlemen's C.

Strengths:

• Wealthy, and not afraid to use it to stock the team


• DC-based; Snyder is unlikely to ever move the team to LA


• Put in elevators to the upper deck of FedEx - consumer focused


• Put in Easy Pass system to speed up concession lines - consumer focused


• Lured Joe Gibbs out of retirement - however it turns out, this is a home run (pardon the metaphor)
  

Needs Improvement:

• Not football smart. His flawed concept for building a team only disrupts progress. Taking "win now" short cuts yields an unbalanced roster, overdrawn salary caps leading to unnatural acts to skirt the issue. As a result, the Redskins are better at manipulating contracts for a few stars than building a resilient team with a flow of young talent under development.
  
• Not an organizational leader. NFL teams are akin to corporations like General Electric. Snyder runs the Redskins like a 1990s dot com. Dot coms got their value from creative software engineers working in a free wheeling way to create a niche product. A few very good people with bright ideas developed innovative products. One or two stars could make you a winner. The problem was they were one hit wonders. They grew fast, and tanked faster.
  
  For GE to be successful, they think and act organizationally -- operate for efficiency and effectiveness at every level, and across-the-board. It's not enough to have the best visible products -- light bulbs, jet engines, generators, appliances. They want the internals to be as good, the accounting department to be as efficient as manufacturing. Acting organizationally, they have sustained success. They are not a one hit wonder.
  
  Jack Welch, GE's legendary chairman & CEO strove for -- demanded -- that his executives achieve organizational excellence, achieve and maintain top three market share, and break bureaucratic boundaries to work together efficiently. That's quite a challenge for a massive corporation like GE. They didn't always succeed, but they always had a reservoir of highly regarded management talent in demand by GE and by a host of other companies eager to emulate them.
  
  By outward appearance, Snyder seems to focus on the fun part of the business -- assessing talent (which he is not best qualified to do), hanging out with players, and negotiating contracts. He gets props for business marketing, but the Redskins' front office is not highly regarded. They seem geared to accommodating Snyder's rule than to best practices (I don't blame the personnel; they gotta eat.) In so doing, they aren't getting results on the field or in serving their customers. Jack Welch would have thrown the bunch, including Snyder, out. Developing a true top tier front office is not as glamorous as picking talent, but it's a lot more important than Snyder treats it. Until this is fixed, the Redskins will be at a competitive disadvantage.
  
• Snyder, alone, proposes a trade for Lance Briggs and then he tells Joe Gibbs! Did Snyder talk to Gregg Williams before hand to understanding how Williams might use Briggs in his defense? Did he take advantage of the brainpower on his staff to assess the trade offs of a Briggs move? I doubt it. If I'm wrong, I apologize. Somehow, I sense that an apology will not necessary. That's the kind of move Snyder was making in 2001. It's what he said he would stop doing when he made Gibbs team president. (F- on that one)
  
• Flawed vision. Snyder wants to win now. Laudable, but misguided; it might lead to a single Super Bowl one day, and will be followed a break-up of the team. Instead he should target consistent playoff appearances and build the best front office/scouting team in the NFL. Then he might have a resilient team that overcomes injury by reloading from the bench with a sound salary structure. Instead, the Redskins rebuild with another team's unwanted stars. A better vision is to build a perennial playoff contender with our stars, capable of winning 10 or 11 games a season. Consistent playoff appearances boost the odds of getting to a Super Bowl.
  
  The difference is subtle. I know the Skins won't win the Super Bowl every year. I can live with that. A perennial contender is much more fun to watch. I would much prefer the frustrations of Philly or Denver fans than what Snyder has given us.

Now, I swear, I promise this is my last Snyder rant, until the next time.

Photo: Daniel Snyder, http://web.syr.edu/~ajhill/snyder.jpg
Photo: Jack Welch, former chairman & CEO, General Electric, http://www.nelsonconsulting.co.uk/Articles/jack

More Washington Redskins draft moves

With teams hiding their intent in the run-up to the draft, there's little for bloggers to do, but write about what others are writing. In the blogosphere, that's called "conversation."

Don Pierson wrote a story for MSNBC Trading down in NFL draft not so easy. He makes the case that it's generally tough to trade down because the other team must swallow a huge a contract for an unproven rookie. It's a risk not many general managers are willing to take. As an example, Pierson quotes Bears GM Jerry Angelo on the Redskins trade offer for Lance Briggs.

"We have to digest what it is from a cap standpoint," general manager Jerry Angelo said. "The sixth pick is an inordinate amount of money and there are cap issues in terms of our plan."

Pierson points out that the difference between last year's sixth and 31st draft pick was about $15 Million in total contract, of which $10 Million was guaranteed.

That's one reason the Oakland Raiders at No. 1 and the Detroit Lions at No. 2 in this year's draft aren't overwhelmed by offers from teams willing to risk big bucks on prospects who find it difficult to live up to the increasing hype and pressure.

Pierson doesn't come out and say it, but a team would be well advised to put some of that first round contract money on an upgraded scouting department and make better picks in the middle round of the draft. (Hint, hint)

Tom Kowalski's story at www.mlive.com says that a deal for the Detroit Lions' number two pick hinges on who the Oakland Raiders take with their number one pick. The consensus is that the Raiders will select JaMarcus Russell. That could prompt up to four teams, including Washington, to offer the Lions trade up deals for a shot at Calvin Johnson. However, Kowalski points out

The Redskins are going to have trouble making a deal for the same reason they couldn't work out a trade with the Lions for cornerback Dre Bly (now with Denver): they don't have enough ammunition. The Redskins don't have a second-round pick because they dealt it away -- and that's going to cripple their chances of competing with other teams.

Oakland will blow up this scenario if they take Johnson instead of Russell.

Skin Patrol at Hogs Haven touched on this in his story Redskins want the Lions pick. He closes the story by cataloging how the Skins frittered away their middle round picks in the Snyder/Gibbs era.

In another sign of football news drought, Patrol beat me to Kowolski's story by an hour or so. Usually there are so many team stories published, and rumors whispered, that everyone can take a different facet of the news and create unique content around it. For the next ten days, bloggers will pounce on every news snippet to be first to comment. If you are third or fourth with a post, you start asking "is there anything I can add to this story, or will this just be another me-too entry?"

There's always the option of a hiatus. The Redskins Report was on one. They are waking up in time for the draft. (TRR was my muse and inspiration when I started this blog.) The Curly R is focusing more on W, its baseball site. Skinsaphrenia was traumatized by last season. They went into hibernation in December, only recently awakening. War Cry is still active. The Warpath and ExtremeSkins message boards are still engaged, but most posts are the hypothetical "should we take . . . " variety. Hogs Haven, if you didn't know, is one of the top five blogs listed on Fair Catch. Check out my other friends in the blogroll to your right.

Running Redskins is hanging in for the run up the draft and a few weeks thereafter, then will wind down until training camp. Summer is coming. The Bay is near, and the boat needs attention.
________________________
Michael Vick is donating $10,000 through the United Way to help the families of the Virginia Tech victims. Mike gets bashed a lot, including by me. He deserves props for this, so I want to acknowledge his concern and generosity.

Washington Redskins draft options

Washington's major dailies are weighing in on the Redskins options in the run-up to the draft on April 28.

Ryan O'Halloran at the Times compiles the number of picks that potential trade-down partners have in the first three rounds of the draft. The Atlanta Falcons, a frequently mentioned trade partner, have three of the first 44 picks. They could be enticed to exchange their #8 and #39 picks in exchange for the Redskins #6. This scenario is plausible because the Washington Redskins have a need for defensive linemen and have been impressed by Louisville's Amobi Okoye, who coincidentally was coached by Atlanta's Bobby Petrino, Louisville's coach last season. The Falcons, supposedly would use the #6 pick on Okoye or safety LaRon Landry.

The money quote in O'Halloran's story:

This draft simply isn't full of top-end talents that have teams drooling and desperate to move into the top 10.

Could it be that everyone wants to trade down because the first rounders aren't worth the money they will demand?

The gee whiz factor in O'Halloran's story is that the San Francisco 49ers have eight of the first 135 picks. With picks galore, a willingness to acquire players, and a beast for a running back, it's just a matter of time before San Francisco returns to glory, and cap hell. Saints-49ers in the 2008 conference championship game? You heard it here first.

Of course, a willingness to acquire hasn't helped the Redskins. Three years from now, lets compare San Francisco's and Washington's won-loss record and draw yet another inference on building through the draft versus building through "proven commodities."

I once worked for the world's largest technology company. There's an old joke about sales reps from that company that goes

How can you tell when the [world's largest technology company] rep is lying?

His lips are moving.

(Just for the record, I never lied. But then, my lips are moving.)

Jason LaCanfora, just back from paternity leave (thank you Hogs Haven for pointing that out), penned The Lying Game on his Redskins Insider blog at the Post. LaCanfora points out the hazards of believing everything - or anything - you hear in the run-up to the draft. Teams are posturing to gain some advantage. Call it the kick-off to the game between the seasons.

Detroit "loves Gaines Adams," according to rumblings picked up by LaCanfora. That confounds mock drafkateers who penciled in JaMarcus Russell or Calvin Johnson, who ever of the two Oakland doesn't take, as the Lions first pick. If that happens, Russell or Johnson could be available by the sixth pick. If it's Russell, the Skins chances to trade down go way up. If it's Johnson, the Redskins should keep him and go to sleep until the second day of the draft. Yes, I recall that the Redskins selected Taylor Jacobs under similar circumstances. Johnson didn't go to Florida and Steve Spurrier didn't hang around. So, there.

This scenario only plays out if Detroit truly prefers Gaines Adams. But then, Detroit's lips are moving.


Photo: Coach Mike Nolan, Chronicle/Mike Maloney http://www.sfgate.com/
Photo: LSU's Calvin Johnson, http://www.nationalchamps.net/

Asante Samuel wants this much

Redskins fans have a more than passing interest in Asante Samuel's negotiations with the Patriots. Yahoo Sports snipped a story from The Boston Globe providing the numbers, and how far apart the two sides are.

"Samuel's representatives were seeking a contract that included about $30 million to be paid out in the first three years of the deal.

"The Patriots were offering a package that averaged around $6 million per season, and although it is not known how much money would be paid out in the first three years, one thing is clear: It wasn't close to the $30 million Samuel was seeking . . . ."

It seems Mr. Samuel is angling for a deal akin to Nate Clements' contract with the San Francisco 49ers. Can't blame the man for trying. The Patriots' offer looks about the same as Denver's deal with Dre' Bly. Can't blame them for trying, either.

Clements signed an eight year $80 Million deal with the 49ers on the first day of free agency. $22 Million was guaranteed. Bly agreed to a five year $33 Million contract extension with the Denver Broncos.

The Redskins did not pursue Clements because of the price tag. In Samuel, they could face the same issue. If Asante wants to take a Dre' Bly-type deal, won't he be inclined to stay with New England? Stay tuned.

I hear every front office in the NFL put up a 49er poster to throw darts at.

Photo: Asante Samuel, wwwnflplayers.com

Joe Gibbs to agitated fans: cool it!

The coach-in-chief sought to calm fans by assuring that the Redskins are just doing their homework by inviting top draft prospects to interviews at Redskin Park in Ashburn, VA. Visits by Calvin Johnson, JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn and other first day draft prospects led fans and bloggers to wonder what that could mean for players on the roster.

Gibbs called the activity "due diligence." "We have brought in every player that we felt like would be a first-round player," Gibbs said. "We brought in a top running back. Does anyone here think that we are going to entertain drafting a running back? I don't think so."

The Redskins have floated so may scenarios for the draft that no one outside of Redskins Park really knows what to expect. All the vibes suggest that the Skins would like to move their sixth pick of the first round in exchange for a player. Asante Samuel is a rumored target -- if the Redskins can sign him for a number closer to Dre' Bly's than Nate Clements'. Completing a trade with Chicago for Lance Briggs is not out of the question, although I hope that one fades away.

I bet "due diligence" calls are burning up phone lines between lots of teams. You shouldn't expect announcements of big deals until draft day (April 28) when we see how Messrs. Russell, Quinn, Johnson and Adams go in the first four picks.

Photo: www.flickr.com from here.

The draft is money

If George Preston Marshall kept the Boston Braves in Boston rather than moving them to Old D.C., perhaps Robert Kraft would own the Washington Patriots. I admire Kraft's approach to building a championship roster. It couldn't be more different than Daniel Snyder's. Where Snyder uses draft picks as currency to make trades happen, Kraft hoards them like gold. Snyder's cheap currency approach has never worked. It's the gold bug that's getting results.

There are rumors that Snyder is nosing around Patriots cornerback Asante Samuel to boost the Redskins' secondary. Thanks to promiscuously trading away draft picks, the Redskins are thin at currency to grease the deal. You might call them (wait for it . . . wait for it) thin Skinned.

It would make no any difference, anyway. The Patriots have a treasure chest of picks in their draft vault. One more pick, even the Skins high draft pick, isn't needed, not when you already have ten in the 2007 draft. To wit:

Round 1 24th pick (from Seattle)

Round 1 28th pick

Round 3 91st pick (Round 2 pick traded to Miami)

Round 4 127th pick

Round 5 171st compensatory pick (Round 5 165th pick traded to Oakland)

Round 6 180th pick (from Arizona)

Round 6 202nd pick

Round 6 208th compensatory pick

Round 6 209th compensatory pick

Round 7 247th compensatory pick (Round 7 238th pick traded to Miami)

Source: about.com found here.

The Patriots are notorious for managing their salary structure. Are they really going to sign two first round draft choices? And the biggie, do they even want to grapple with the salary demands of a number six first rounder? The Patriots, with draft bullion galore, are far more interested in re-signing Mr. Samuel. Unless the Redskins throw in players of value and 2008 picks.

Be afraid, Redskins fans. Be very afraid.

Draft Trivia #1: If the Bears accepted the Redskins trade offer for Lance Briggs, they not only would have the Redskins' first round #6 pick, but would also have the Skins' second round 37th pick, acquired through the New York Jets. I think the Bears made a mistake (for themselves) by not taking Snyder's offer and running out the door. I'm grateful to them, though.

Draft Trivia #2: If the Redskins hadn't frivolously traded away their third round pick for TJ Duckett, they would be better positioned to counter Chicago's counter-offer for Lance Briggs. Not that I think it's a good idea, but trading a first and third round pick for a sure starter makes more sense than a third round pick for an "insurance policy."

Photo: Robert Kraft, www.columbia.edu

Bears lance the Briggs deal

Espn.com and Foxsports.com are reporting that the Chicago Bears are rejecting the Redskins trade offer for LB Lance Briggs. The Redskins offered its first round draft pick for Briggs and Chicago's number one pick during the owner's meetings last week. Reportedly, Da Bears wanted the Skins to throw Rocky McIntosh into the offer for Briggs. The Redskins said earlier that they had already made their best and final offer and made it a "take it or leave it" proposition for Chicago.

If there are only two positive outcomes from this escapade, it would have to be these: the Redskins must see Rocky McIntosh in a new light; and, the Bears let the Redskins off the hook.

The Bears don't have a ready replacement for Briggs. That they see McIntosh in that role, adds lustre to a young player whose team often overlooks the gems on its roster. Talk of bringing Briggs here to displace McIntosh led to a lot of fan grumbling. A trade of Briggs for McIntosh would have led to revolt.

The two teams may still be maneuvering to save the deal, but it appears to be dying a merciful death.

The Redskins have re-signed punter Derrick Frost to a one year contract. Frost struggled with shanked and shallow punts early in his Redskin career. He turned it around by mid-season to be a consistent punter, blasting some of his boots fifty yards or more. He had a 42.9 yard average on the season.

Frost is the feel good story of the team. We watched him work through his struggles and grow into his role. Fans invest in role players like Frost and welcome his place on the roster - as long as he performs. It is not necessary to bring in big name talent to attract fan interest in the Redskins. I think that escapes the front office.

The Redskins will play the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens at home in August preseason games. The exact time and date is to be announced.

Photo: Rocky McIntosh, www.redskins.com

Daniel Snyder, lose the "win now" attitude.

It's ruining the team. "Win now" didn’t work for the 2000 "$100 million team," and it isn’t working now. Instead, it encourages your management team to take short cuts at high cost. They buy other team’s stars, expecting instant results. Stars emerge from systems. If you aren't running the same system as that other team, the star you bring in may not be as effective for you. (See Archuleta, Adam) Even if that trade or free agent is successful, it's going to take a season for them to jell. The team will be more successful growing its own talent. Merge them with your scheme and keep them on your roster.


This comment arises from the stories of how the Lance Briggs trade offer came about. Briggs is a fine player. He can improve any defense. By himself, he cannot help the Skins D enough to fill all the holes. The suddeness of the offer, the investment of precious cap dollars to an area of strength, the left field nature of the whole thing are the earmarks of the worst characterist of the Redskins under your ownership -- ill-considered personnel moves that add players who don't really fit. Scouting by name recognition is what I do in fantasy football. It's not what you should do in reality football. Unless you grew up in a football family like someone named Halas, or Rooney, you will always be taken advantage of by a football professional when you drive the personnel moves.

Take a page from former General Electric chairman Jack Welch. Sure, he wanted to make the most profit in American business in every quarter. That was his result, but never his goal. He wanted results. Welch famously demanded that GE divisions hold a top three market share position, or he sold them off. Your equivilent is to demand the Redskins make the playoffs every year. That leads to a more patient approach, one that has longer lasting impact than the quick hits (and short duration) the Skins have become famous for in your tenure.

Coaches requisition needs. Scouts find talent. General managers have the vision and expertise to build a roster that can win within budget and over the long term. Mr. Snyder, you have the vision, but lack the expertise to pull this off. Your role is to hold your people accountable.


Demand to know why your homegrown talent is now the middle linebacker for the Giants. Demand to know why a cornerback on the 2005 roster is had a pro-bowl season — for San Francisco. Demand to know if the people, including you, who managed your roster last year should have as much influence this year.


These things are not as much fun as hobnobbing with famous players or closing big deals, but demanding accountability is the second most important thing good owners do. (The most important is to hire a competent general manager. That's more important than hiring a competent coach.) You are the only one who can hold people accountable. We need you to be good at it. Do that, and you are on the first step toward building a winning organization that can sustain success over the long term. If it's you that's overlooking homegrown, rising stars in favor of famous names from somewhere else, then you should take a look at your results and step aside for the professionals.


Put your team on a strict financial budget, and by budget, I mean both cash dollars and salary cap dollars. We fans admire your willingness to open the checkbook to bring in talent for unlimited dollars, but it’s a double-edged sword. When there are limits, you get a lot smarter spending your money. You learn that it’s OK if free agents walk away when they price themselves out of the market. You get smarter about the next player alternative. And you take a good look at talent already on your roster. You find people who can move up and you groom them to start. They stay longer at a reasonable cost.


It may surprise you to know that we fans invest in players who grow before our eyes. We love it when a LaVar and Champ and Fred and Jon mature with the team. Believe me, we are as invested in Chris Cooley as in Santana Moss. We have high hopes for Jason and Rocky and Carlos and Derrick and Kedric and Khari. Ladell is a success. We want to win with them. We'll miss them more than the stars you bring in to replace them.


You and your management are failing to spend your money wisely. Because you have so much to spend, you buy everyone at any price. That doesn't work. We are not building fantasy teams here. Not saying you should be cheap, but the sky is not the limit, either.


Here's what to do when you get excited by that trade prospect, take his 2006 stats and discount by a third. Cut every free agent’s prior performance by a third. Then, compare that to the performance of the players now on the roster. If the current player's performance is the same as that outsider's discounted stats, let the new guy walk, or, at least offer less to sign him. Save your cap dollars.


Free agents need time to fit in. For a single season, the guy already in your system will give you more than that free agent in his first season here. I assure you, Andre Carter will be better this year just because he's been in your system for a year. A lot of those decisions are left to the coaches and general managers (if you had one). Only you can impose financial discipline.


Restore the draft as a source of talent. The Redskins overvalue free agency as a source of talent. Think about this. Stalwarts Jon Jansen, Chris Samuels, Champ Bailey, Fred Smoot, LaVar Arrington, Sean Taylor and Jason Campbell (maybe) came to the Skins by the draft. In your ownership, Santana Moss is the only traded player better than the man he replaced. Shawn Springs is good, but he’s no Champ Bailey. Clinton Portis was traded for Bailey. He's one of the top five at his position, but Bailey is simply the best.

All of these issues come from your desire to win now. Change the goal to winning over the long term. The team that is built patiently, can contend for the playoff consistently. Consistent playoff contenders are much better postioned to go all the way and are a lot more fun to watch.

Don’t be so quick to give up those multiple draft choices for trades. Maybe when you see what Mike Shanahan, a consistent contender, does with that third round draft he got from you through Atlanta, you will start to get it.




Daniel Snyder Photo: William E. Amatucci Jr./WireImage from here.

Lance Briggs ???

Ten questions about a Lance Briggs trade:

1. Didn't we just dump a player who was a poor fit in Gregg Williams defense? Lance Briggs played in Chicago's Tampa-2 defense with a 3-4 alignment. Would he be the second coming of Adam in Washington?

2. Sure he can tackle. Can he stop the run?

3. Lance Briggs and how many draft choices? Initial reports said Chicago will send Briggs and its first round selection (31st overall). That's it?

4. Briggs is young, at least. His productivity might be concurrent with his contract, unlike the thirty-somethings the Redskins often bring in whose serviceability is less than the term of their deal. How will the men of Ashburn structure Briggs' contract so that they can get out if he turns out to be the second coming of Adam? How will that money affect the Skins ability to restock the team later this decade? Do fans want Briggs if he costs us Sean Taylor at the end of his contract?

5. If Briggs is unhappy with franchise player money ($7.4 Million in 2007), how much will it take to make him happy? How will he feel when asked to restructure his contract next season? The Redskins are thought to be over the 2008 salary cap already. They need team guys willing to be flexible on their contracts for the inevitable restructure.

6. Do the men of Ashburn expect the fans to be excited by this move? Initial comments on The Warpath and ExtremeSkins message boards are highly skeptical (I'm being polite.)

7. Is Marcus Washington recovering on schedule? My negative attitude will change completely if Washington will miss significant time this season.

8. Have the coaches given up on Rocky McIntosh, because that's what this move is saying? For that matter, are the Redskins, with the league's oldest staff, any good at assessing and coaching young talent? 8a: Have the coaches given up on Lemar Marshall, too?

9. Is linebacker the area of greatest need on the defense? Wouldn't it be better (smarter) to trade our number one pick for a lineman who can bring pass rushing pressure? Then, we could apply the lower pick on an offensive guard or cornerback.

10. Whatever happened to that Dre' Bly trade idea? That made much more sense. Is it off the table? With Briggs, we seem to be solving a problem we do not have.

BONUS Question, held in reserve until a Briggs deal comes to pass: Can we fire the owner?

I have to say it (close your eye kiddies). If this deal goes through, Lance Briggs and Drew Rosenhaus are tools, and Snyder is their bitch.

Photo: http://SportsSyndicate.blogspot.com found here.

The latest from Warpath

Two items of interest from The Warpath fan forum:

Check out the In The Money cartoon at bangcartoon.com. Clever. Funny.

The Warpath pointed to Jason LaCanfora's Redskins Insider blog entry Front Office Rumblings hinting at a shake-up of the Skins personnel management structure. LaCanfora couldn't confirm the rumors but sensed that something might (emphasis might) be up. In any event, the scouts are worried that The Turk could visit them after the draft. Writes LaCanfora:

"In an organization as top-heavy as this, where glitz and splash have overwhelmed sound thought for so long, could you really blame the scouts of all people? But they are also the first guys to end up taking a bullet when times are tough, hence the worries".

Jason LaCanfora is the Redskins beat writer for The Washington Post.

Redskins' signings strategic and wise

Columnist Grant Paulson coined a new term to describe the Redskins 2006 defense in his fredericksburg.com story Redskins' signings strategic and wise.

efense, because the "d" was missing

Loved it. Wished I thought of it first.

I want to give Mr. Paulson all due credit and respect here and now, because I'm sure to borrow the term again and I'll forget how I got it.

Paulson compliments the Skins' front office for their first few signings and for the general absence of excess. You can read the rest of his article here.

Rumor: Skins to release personnel guys

Rumor-monger ProFootballTalk.com posted a story 'SKINS TO CLEAN HOUSE AFTER THE DRAFT?. You can see the story by following the link to profootballtalk.com and scrolling down to "POSTED 7:37 p.m. EST; UPDATED 7:55 p.m. EST, February 28, 2007."

Thanks to The Warpath fan forum for pointing to this story.

This story ranks with other fan fantasies like "happily ever after," "million dollar jackpot" and "new Redskins GM." If the team reached this conclusion, why wait until after the draft? It would have made more sense to do it right after the season to have the time to put new personnel guys in place in time to affect the next draft.

Profootballtalk never claimed more than to report rumors. Something may be up, but a Saturday night massacre? I'll wait and see on that one.

Photo: Vinnie Cerrato and Daniel Snyder, http://archive.profootballweekly.com