USA Today: Redskins' Fletcher yearns for a trophy dash

[bubba9497]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2007-08-16-Fletcher_N.htm


click link for full article



Redskins' Fletcher yearns for a trophy dash

By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY


ASHBURN, Va. — London Fletcher remembers the good times and he'd like to see them come again.

As an undrafted free agent in 1998, Fletcher signed with the St. Louis Rams and was one of two rookies to make the team. He barged into the lineup as the starting middle linebacker the next year and the Rams won the Super Bowl. Two years later, they played in another.

The Rams then went through a couple of defensive upheavals and Fletcher, eager to reap rewards not forthcoming, ventured out into free agency to join the Buffalo Bills. There he toiled for five years, without so much as a taste of the playoffs.

Now he's one of the few Redskins free-agent acquisitions of 2007, signed to a five-year contract worth $25 million, with $10.5 million in signing bonus. He's reunited with Gregg Williams, who runs the Redskins defense and brought Fletcher to Buffalo when he was the Bills coach.

Fletcher thinks this is where worlds collide, where he knows and loves his role in the defense, where his future is secure and where another trophy might be possible.

"To experience success so early in my career and then not winning was very difficult. I kind of got very spoiled," he said. "To have a five-year drought made for very long days and very long seasons."

The Redskins slipped badly on defense last season, finishing 31st in the NFL. They also dropped to 5-11 after going 10-6 in 2005 and getting within a game of competing for the NFC Championship. They know they need to create more turnovers and sacks and improve against the run if they're to return to the playoffs, which they've reached twice in seven years. In Fletcher they found a player who meets two of Williams' most important criteria.

"I love his intelligence of the game and his production. It's magical for me to see the guys who are healthy week in and week out," Williams said. "You've got to be accountable and you've got to be available and here's a guy that's never missed a game and we know that he's going to be in there week in and week out."

Fletcher, 32, enters his 10th season having never missed a game. His first start came in the final game of his rookie season (1998) and he has missed only one start since (in 2000). He has led his team in tackles for eight consecutive years while managing to almost never be acknowledged for it.

"He may be the most productive tackling linebacker over the last five seasons who has never been to a Pro Bowl. Hopefully we can get that done," Williams said.

Knowing that Williams would like to have him was part of the lure to Washington. The sense of how he could fit in began to dawn on Fletcher last year in Buffalo. The Bills and Redskins both were matched up with the AFC South in their schedules and Fletcher kept getting long looks at a Williams defense functioning without all the necessary parts.

[onnie007]

Awesome article Bubba! I feel very very very good about Fletcher and this D this year!:cheers:

[Touchdown Redskins]

Screw the pro bowl, I want a superbowl.

[TheLongshot]

And Die Hard thinks this guy is overpaid? :rubeyes:

Jason

[redskins55]

Fletcher's signing as already shown dividends, But what I can't understand is how Marshall fell off so quickly. Lemar was all over the field in 05' as the middle backer but he was nonexistant in 06'.

[fdarugar]

Looks like Fletcher is getting alot of preseason pub

[Die Hard]

And Die Hard thinks this guy is overpaid? :rubeyes:

Jason

Wow Jason, a fluff article.... and you're sold huh? Seriously.

He's 32 years old.... we could have had him for half that contract. When was the last time the Redskins signed a player to market value?

Just wait for the next fluff article.... and then I expect you to be screaming that Chris Cooley should be the highest paid TE in the NFL.

And then I'll wait for the next fluff article.... and I expect you to be screaming that Mike Sellers should be the highest paid FB in the NFL.

And it goes on and on.... because all you have to do is say some nice positive quotes... and you've sold Jason.

[buckeyeG]

Wow Jason, a fluff article.... and you're sold huh? Seriously.

He's 32 years old.... we could have had him for half that contract. When was the last time the Redskins signed a player to market value?

Just wait for the next fluff article.... and then I expect you to be screaming that Chris Cooley should be the highest paid TE in the NFL.

And then I'll wait for the next fluff article.... and I expect you to be screaming that Mike Sellers should be the highest paid FB in the NFL.

And it goes on and on.... because all you have to do is say some nice positive quotes... and you've sold Jason.

Ok Die hard i see where your going.....but...LBF is a PROVEN middle LB and has now reunited with GW in this defense.

Let's see where this takes the D befor we jump to conclusions.

[Chief skin]

His age and the money are the same old front office bad football decisions that have this franchise wallowing in mediocrity

[Major Harris]

he may prove to be worth every penny. doesn't necessarily mean he's not overpaid. if he couldn't have collected nearly the money from other teams that he got from us, he's overpaid. i don't know what his other offers were, i'm just saying that die hard could be spot on.

as far as coming here for a trophy......if i were a free agent, and i was thinking super bowl, dc wouldn't be high on my list of destinations. now, if i was thinking coin.....

[Die Hard]

Let's see where this takes the D before we jump to conclusions.

You don't have to see his play on the field to know that you don't pay 32-year old $10M in signing bonuses. His play on the field has nothing to do with age. We're just talking smart FO business decisions here.

[Pedro]

You don't have to see his play on the field to know that you don't pay 32-year old $10M in signing bonuses. His play on the field has nothing to do with age. We're just talking smart FO business decisions here.

Not true. In order to see the value of a player you need to see the season.

If LF is the difference maker in a NFC Championship winning D he will have been worth that $10m even if he only plays 1 season. If we stink it up and he plays bad he won't be worth half what he signed for.

Added to that no one here knows what Fletcher would have signed for. He was unrestricted so didn't cost us picks or players which automatically bumps up the dollar portion of a contract. We have enough cap room to sign Cooley to an extension and bring in more depth if we want. For a franchise that makes a profit even if we spent our full cap allocation dollars are meaningless unless it costs us another player we want/need more. I don't see that happening so this signing was good business as we stand right now.

Of course the future may show that having $5m extra to spend this season would have been a difference maker. We all know that is not going to happen though so what is the big deal? What would you do with that extra $5m that we can't already do without it?

[Riggo-toni]

What we should remember is that Pierce had been willing to extend his contract for a signing bonus between $3m and $4m, but we lowballed him instead, and he bolted.

Giving LFB a substantial signing bonus is an admission of how desperately GW's defense needs someone like Pierce or Baker to be successful. I have no complaints about signing Baker except like so many times before, we could've had a younger, home-grown guy almost as productive for considerably less cap space.

[GroundNPound]

You don't have to see his play on the field to know that you don't pay 32-year old $10M in signing bonuses. His play on the field has nothing to do with age. We're just talking smart FO business decisions here.

I guess it doesn't matter that he has been one of the most productive linebackers in the nfl for the last 7 years, averaging 140 tackles a season.

Or that he has basically no injury history.

Or that he had 14 passes defended last year... more than any other linebacker in the league... and many DBs.

And 4 interceptions.

Or that he weighs in at 250-260 lbs and still flies all over the field (under-sized my ass)

Or that he is one of the best in the league when it comes to lining the front 8 up... a huge problem w/ us last season.

Or that we had little linebacker depth... with his addition we go from no true depth to having one of the deeper cores in the league.

Or the fact that his contract is structured so that we can cut him after a couple years w/ out a huge hit on our cap.

This is the fact of the matter... if he performs as he should, our defense will be stout at the least and it will have looked like we got the steal of free agency.

I would rather pay decent money for a 32 year old fletcher than vet min for Holden.

[Robbnva]

If anyone has ideas of how to get us to the superbowl it would be Fletch. I do not know how we got him but I am sure glad he is here.

[TheLongshot]

You don't have to see his play on the field to know that you don't pay 32-year old $10M in signing bonuses. His play on the field has nothing to do with age. We're just talking smart FO business decisions here.

Smart FO decisions is getting players you need into your organization. You do that by not really dicking around with price and putting out your best offer. That's always been Snyder's MO, and I don't think it is a bad one.

You seem stuck on his age, but we are talking about a guy who has never been injured, who is still playing at a very high level, and is showing no signs of slowing down.

This is a guy who has always been successful wherever he has gone. He's also a leader, which this defense badly needed last year.

As a bonus, this is a guy who knows Williams' system, so we don't even have to worry too much about adjustments. Certainly, he showed a lot in his first preseason game.

And you want to dick around with price for this guy?

BTW, here's how his cap numbers break down:

2007: 3M
2008: 3.4M
2009: 4.3M
2010: 7.1M
2011: 7.1M

So, for what is basically a 3 year deal, are those really outrageous numbers, considering his production?

Jason

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

Fletcher's signing as already shown dividends, But what I can't understand is how Marshall fell off so quickly. Lemar was all over the field in 05' as the middle backer but he was nonexistant in 06'.

You have to remember, a lot of how effective a MLB is depends on the health and play of the DT's in front of him.

[TheLongshot]

You have to remember, a lot of how effective a MLB is depends on the health and play of the DT's in front of him.

Well, considering Griffin was out on Saturday, and Fletcher was still effective, I don't know if we really need to worry about that as much.

Also, knowing the defense he can better position the players, which should help the defense improve overall.

Jason

[Siven]

You don't have to see his play on the field to know that you don't pay 32-year old $10M in signing bonuses. His play on the field has nothing to do with age. We're just talking smart FO business decisions here.

When he's lead the league in tackles the past five years.... actually, you do....When you think he can take your defense back to the top 10/top 5...You do. Does Dwight Freeney deserve what he got? Doe Nate Clements? ... We had the cap space, we are in a fine cap situation, quit pissing and moaning about it. LF was a good signing and the needed stabilizer in our defense.

What have peopled raved about LF.

He gets people in position to make plays before the play happens.

You can't put a dollar sign on a contribution like that.

[Siven]

You have to remember, a lot of how effective a MLB is depends on the health and play of the DT's in front of him.


When the MLB is small like Marshall that has a huge impact, LF is pretty freaking stout he's in the 260-270 range which is huge. That's bigger than Ray Lewis.

[Die Hard]

Does Dwight Freeney deserve what he got? Doe Nate Clements?

Nate Clements is 27.
Dwight Freeney is 27.

You beginning to see a pattern here?

I know you have it in you.... I'd like to think nobody is that dense.

[Die Hard]

BTW, here's how his cap numbers break down:

2007: 3M
2008: 3.4M
2009: 4.3M
2010: 7.1M
2011: 7.1M

So, for what is basically a 3 year deal, are those really outrageous numbers, considering his production?

Ok, $10M signing bonus... and $10.7M in salary.

$21M for 3 years.... $7M/year.

Yep, that's a bargain Jason. :rolleyes:

Here's some other numbers..... that's $5M/year we're paying him for 3 seasons (at a bare minimum). If that's a deal for you for a 32-year old player.... then I'm sure you pissed yourself with excitement when Brunell was had for only an $8M bonus - and he was coming off a year where he didn't play so he was fresh with no signs of aging :rolleyes:

http://hailredskins.blogspot.com/2007/03/player-profile-london-fletcher.html

London Fletcher, a middle linebacker with 9 years of experience, signed a 5-year $25 million contract with the Redskins, including a $10 million signing bonus. Due to Fletcher's age and the back-end salaries on the contract, the contract is really a 3-year deal for $15 million.

http://fantasyfootball.usatoday.com/content/player.asp?sport=nfl&id=2302

Redskins signed middle linebacker London Fletcher-Baker to a five-year, $25 million contract. The deal includes a $10.5 million signing bonus and pays Fletcher $12.5 million over the first two seasons.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2786241

Fletcher, 31, will sign a five-year, $25 million contract that includes $10.5 million in bonuses. He will earn nearly $13 million in the first two seasons of the deal and about $15 million over the first three years.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm actually not in the camp that Fletcher is overpaid. His contract seems generally acceptable for a top MLB. His age is a concern, but I can see rolling the dice on a 32-year-old with no injury history.

Where I do agree with Die Hard is that the Skins have never grasped three simple concepts.

1. If you are going to overpay, overpay in-house. Chris Cooley is nowhere near as good as Antonio Gates. However, he might be as important to the Skins as Gates is to the Chargers. For your own players, their value is calculated by the value they are to the team - not to their intrinsic value against other players in the league. (As an example look at how the Steelers and Patriots pay their defensive linemen. Their linemen - with one exception - are just big fat guys who eat up blockers. They don't generate any kind of stats. However, they are all paid exceptionally well because they play incredibly important roles in their defenses).

2. Free agents should be valued relative to other free agents, not on what you think their value is going to be to you. Never overpay for a free agent because you don't know how they are going to react in their own environment.

(This is generally the concept behind the stat DVOA. Ladanian Tomlinson's DVOA can only be viewed in terms of his entire team. This is something the Cardinals did not understand when they signed Edgerrin James).

3. In the NFL, a dollar spent on a Player A is a dollar that cannot be spent on Player B. The teams cap situation is adequate now, but that is not an excuse for lack of discipline.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Die Hard, I didn't like this transaction at all for all the reasons you have stated so far. Too old, too overpaid, not a true impact player.

That being said, there are two things I like about it now:
1. He looked damn good in that first game, and if he can be that good for one or two seasons, the deal is not outrageous, moneywise.
2. I think Fletcher will have a big impact on HB Blades, who seems to have taken to him, and I think is a bit of a LF clone. If HB can be as effective a player as LF under his mentoring, then LF will have a very positive impact on the long run of this franchise

[SkinsFTW]

I don't have a problem with the Fletcher signing.

Maybe the AA, Lloyd, Randel El, Brunell, Duckett, Lavar, signings and Pierce non signing did that. I still think getting Pierce resigned in 04 would have been a great idea.

[Die Hard]

I'm actually not in the camp that Fletcher is overpaid. His contract seems generally acceptable for a top MLB. His age is a concern, but I can see rolling the dice on a 32-year-old with no injury history.

At 32 years old..... your chances of injury begin to creep up ever slightly :) He's not a top MLB.... he's a good solid MLB. He didn't make the Bills defense an elite unit. He just lead his unit in tackles... which most MLB on every team seems to do. And if you're aware of the Bills offensive struggles in the past 5 years.... you'd realize he's had a lot more opportunities than most linebackers to pick up some tackles.

[Die Hard]

Tell you what... go visit Bills forums.... go ask them who they'd rather have... London Fletcher or Paul Pozluzny. And then ask them why.

I live in this area.... Bills/Sabres on my car radio for my 30-minute commute every day.

Fletcher was a good player for them... but they knew he was getting up there and the contract the Skins signed him for was ridiculous. Comparatively to how we feel about the contract of Derrick Dockery (I understand DD made a helluva lot more... but again, this is where AGE plays a factor).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

At 32 years old..... your chances of injury begin to creep up ever slightly :) He's not a top MLB.... he's a good solid MLB. He didn't make the Bills defense an elite unit. He just lead his unit in tackles... which most MLB on every team seems to do. And if you're aware of the Bills offensive struggles in the past 5 years.... you'd realize he's had a lot more opportunities than most linebackers to pick up some tackles.

All more or less true.

The real reason for the signing and the payout though is the team's desperation. If it hadn't screwed up the MLB position so badly, it would not have been so desperate.

[Die Hard]

All more or less true.

The real reason for the signing and the payout though is the team's desperation. If it hadn't screwed up the MLB position so badly, it would not have been so desperate.

While true... as desperate as they were.... I still think the FO could have been more prudent in negotiations. Sure, it seems trivial like we're talking about nickel-and-dimes here (because it's not our cash).... but it's still the philosophy and principle of the situation that I'm at odds with. And it's that philosophy that's been prevalent here in the past and continues to this day... and is in large part to blame for the situation we're in now.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

While true... as desperate as they were.... I still think the FO could have been more prudent in negotiations. Sure, it seems trivial like we're talking about nickel-and-dimes here (because it's not our cash).... but it's still the philosophy and principle of the situation that I'm at odds with. And it's that philosophy that's been prevalent here in the past and continues to this day... and is in large part to blame for the situation we're in now.

I don't disagree.

However, if I ran a front office, I would almost certainly wildly overpay a mid-level free agent every two or three years just to keep people on their toes. If I felt I had no choices at MLB and there was an adequate MLB available, I would make him extremely happy.

The problem with the Skins is they do this with every signing. From Archuleta to Lloyd to Smoot's $7 million bonus when most teams viewed him as radioactive, they wildly overpay EVERY free agent or trade acquisition.

What really bugs me is not so much the overspending, it is the treatment of the players once the contract becomes unworkable.

Say what you will about Sean Springs, but the fact that the team went to him and expected him to a take a pay cut last year is insulting. Archuleta stunk, but I don't approve of "Let's make him miserable so he will leave" approach they took last year. I don't like the way things ended with Coles or Lavar either.

Eventually, this has to have an effect on the locker room and your reputation around the league.

And who wants to bet that after next year when Fletcher visibily starts to slow down, the team doesn't try to strong-arm him out of town too?

[TheLongshot]

1. If you are going to overpay, overpay in-house.

Actually, I think the FO DOES understand that. The problem is, having the ability to do it. For Smoot and Pierce, they were hamstrung by the cap, and other teams could put more money up front. Both players decided to go for the money. Clark was projected as a backup player, and I can't really argue with that since he really never was that special. And, Buffalo WAY overpaid for Dockery. (Hey, I guess other teams are allowed to do that.)

Cooley is going to be an interesting case, since he's a starter who earned it and we don't have a Coles-like cap hit to deal with. There really are no excuses for getting that one done.


2. Free agents should be valued relative to other free agents, not on what you think their value is going to be to you. Never overpay for a free agent because you don't know how they are going to react in their own environment.

Actually, I think the signings this year reflect that, since most of them are known quantities to the coaching staff. Arch, in that respect, was a big mistake.


3. In the NFL, a dollar spent on a Player A is a dollar that cannot be spent on Player B. The teams cap situation is adequate now, but that is not an excuse for lack of discipline.

They understand that fact very well. You don't have a good cap situation without knowing the ramifications for signing a player now and into the future.

Personally, I much prefer an aggressive front office that goes out there and gets the players they need rather than one that sits still, pinches pennies, and makes mediocre teams. If we fail (and obviously, I don't want to fail) I'd rather fail by being too aggressive rather than too conservative.

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Actually, I think the FO DOES understand that. The problem is, having the ability to do it. For Smoot and Pierce, they were hamstrung by the cap, and other teams could put more money up front. Both players decided to go for the money. Clark was projected as a backup player, and I can't really argue with that since he really never was that special. And, Buffalo WAY overpaid for Dockery. (Hey, I guess other teams are allowed to do that.)

Buffalo did overpay for Dockery. Buffalo has sucked for seven years; they are going to suck for another seven. I have no problem with letting Dockery walk once Buffalo made its offer.

Of course, all of this might have been avoided if the team had made an offer to Dockery a year ago, prior to the cap going up. I do have a problem with the fact that we let players hit the market while pretending we want to keep them.


Cooley is going to be an interesting case, since he's a starter who earned it and we don't have a Coles-like cap hit to deal with. There really are no excuses for getting that one done.

I have no confidence that Cooley will be here next year. None. Once he hits the season, his agent will probably tell him to play out the year and let the market decide next year.

[TheLongshot]

The problem with the Skins is they do this with every signing. From Archuleta to Lloyd to Smoot's $7 million bonus when most teams viewed him as radioactive, they wildly overpay EVERY free agent or trade acquisition.

Only the major ones. There are a lot of minor signings that the team makes as well. For example, Collins isn't making all that much. Neither is Derek Blaylock. It is only the big deals, the 2-3 they make a year, that get that type of money.


What really bugs me is not so much the overspending, it is the treatment of the players once the contract becomes unworkable.

Say what you will about Sean Springs, but the fact that the team went to him and expected him to a take a pay cut last year is insulting. Archuleta stunk, but I don't approve of "Let's make him miserable so he will leave" approach they took last year. I don't like the way things ended with Coles or Lavar either.

I'm rather amused that we talk about Fletcher, who has never been injured, earning too much, but you think that asking a corner who has a 7m cap number and was hurt a large portion of last year "insulting". Personally, I think it is perfectly fair to ask for some relief there. (and perfectly fair for him to say, "No".)

In response, they could have very easily cut him if they really wanted to. Goodness knows, we see that around the league all the time. Instead, they kept him around and worked around his salary.

I actually think the Redskins treatment of disgruntled or displaced players to be quite good. They've never forced a player who didn't want to be here to stay, they've usually looked for places where the player in question would want to go, and moved them there.


And who wants to bet that after next year when Fletcher visibily starts to slow down, the team doesn't try to strong-arm him out of town too?

And when have they done something like that? Can you give me an example?

Even if he slows down, I doubt he will be out of here before three years are up.

Jason

[REDSKINZ-RIDEORDIE]

People are underestimating the impact London Fletcher will have on this team.

[TheLongshot]

Of course, all of this might have been avoided if the team had made an offer to Dockery a year ago, prior to the cap going up. I do have a problem with the fact that we let players hit the market while pretending we want to keep them.

Well, it takes two to tango. What makes you think the Skins didn't try to resign him? What makes you think that Dock's agent wanted to accept an offer probably well below what the other members of the line were making? Do you think his agent was unaware of the fact that the cap was going up significantly and that there was more money to be had on the open market?

You make a lot of assumptions of what the Skins did or didn't do, when you really don't know.


I have no confidence that Cooley will be here next year. None. Once he hits the season, his agent will probably tell him to play out the year and let the market decide next year.

You mean like Betts? :rolleyes:

I'll worry if the deal doesn't get done by the end of the season.

Jason

[LiveStrongSkins]

You don't have to see his play on the field to know that you don't pay 32-year old $10M in signing bonuses. His play on the field has nothing to do with age. We're just talking smart FO business decisions here.

Considering other guys at or around his age got more than 20 million... I think 10 million is fine. (Porter)

[TheLongshot]

Considering other guys at or around his age got more than 20 million... I think 10 million is fine. (Porter)

That's a good point. Joey Porter, who is 30, got a 5 year, $37m contract with $20m in guaranteed money.

That makes Fletcher's contract look real good.

Jason

[skinsfan51]

Guys with a instinctive nose for the ball are hard to come by. I think he's worth the money. The question is, can his body still take the pounding at his age? We'd hate to pay all that money to a guy who will sit due to injury.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Only the major ones. There are a lot of minor signings that the team makes as well. For example, Collins isn't making all that much. Neither is Derek Blaylock. It is only the big deals, the 2-3 they make a year, that get that type of money.


And both are terrible football players.

This is precisely why an injury to Pierson Freakin' Prioleau gets injured and we can no longer compete.

Every dollar spent on one player is a dollar that can't be spent on another player.

Because we dramatically and alarmingly overpaid for Archuleta, Lloyd and ARE, we are stuck with backups like Collins and Blaylock.

(Actually, I have no idea why we are discussing Blaylock when he ain't gonna make the team).

[TheLongshot]

And both are terrible football players.

http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickblaylock/profile?id=BLA791612

A career 4.1 rush average? I'll take that kind of "terrible" as a backup anyday, particularly from an offensive coach who knows how to best use him.

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickblaylock/profile?id=BLA791612

A career 4.1 rush average? I'll take that kind of "terrible" as a backup anyday, particularly from an offensive coach who knows how to best use him.

Jason

Blaylock was a decent backup running back in 2004. He has 42 carries over the last two years. He averaged a staggering 1.8 ypc last year.

I notice in your world, players never age or decline or stop caring. They are always as good as their best year.

Do you know who else had a hell of a 2004 as backup? TJ Duckett. 509 yards on a 4.9 ypc.

We should really figure out a way to get that guy.

[1028046]

I guess it doesn't matter that he has been one of the most productive linebackers in the nfl for the last 7 years, averaging 140 tackles a season.


Or that he had 14 passes defended last year... more than any other linebacker in the league... and many DBs.



Where do you get your stats? 140 tackles is way over what he actually had in fact he barely averages 100 if not a little below

[1028046]

http://www.nfl.com/players/londonfletcher-baker/profile?id=FLE665780

This is his official player page from NFL.com shows 104 total tackles last year

Bills website shows 146

I tend to believe the NFL site over team sites

[[[ghost]]]

Screw the pro bowl, I want a superbowl.

Its the only bowl that matters.

[TheLongshot]

I notice in your world, players never age or decline or stop caring. They are always as good as their best year.

And I notice in your world once a player has a bad season, that they will suck forever more. No chance of redemption, particularly going back to a coach where he had all of those good seasons as a backup.

By your measure, Smoot should suck too.

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

And I notice in your world once a player has a bad season, that they will suck forever more. No chance of redemption, particularly going back to a coach where he had all of those good seasons as a backup.

By your measure, Smoot should suck too.

Jason

No...I don't feel that way at all. I think Griffin is going to be pretty good this year. And I think Portis has two strong years left in him before he enters Jamal Lewis territory.

I think Randy Moss is going to catch 12 TDs in New England and make the Pro Bowl.

I think Ben Roethlisberger is going to have a very good year.

I thinke Edge James will have - in general - a better year this year than last year.

I think Adam Archuleta will have a surprising season actually.

I think Smoot is going to be better than he was in Minny, but I think his days as a "feared" CB are just about over.

My concern is always the "WHY" of a decline. Brandon Lloyd stunk last year because he has bad hands, poor route-running, and a crappy attitude. I don't see that changing with Mr. Shin Splints.

Here is my #1 prediction for a bust year in 2007: Larry Johnson. Why? He had 800 carries last year. Running backs never recover from years like that. I think Portis came dangerously close to the "too many carries" threshold in 2005, but I actually think the injuries last year may have bought him a few more years of effectiveness. The tendinitis does raise my "Overworked RB" sensors a bit though.

Here are some hard and fast rules:

1. 370 carries in a season kills a running back.
2. Consecutive seasons of 340 carries kills a running back.
3. Running backs age in dog years once they hit 30 and/or 1800 career carries.
4. Players on their third NFL contract are dangerous.
5. QBs who slip below a 59 percent completon percentage are really dangerous.
6. No one ever recovers from a hip injury.
7. It takes two years to recover from a knee injury.
8. Ankle and shoulder injuries are not scary in the least if the player is under 30.
9. When the Steelers, Patriots, and Eagles let a player go in free agency, that player is done.
10. Offensive lineman have the longest life expectancy in the NFL. For nearly every other position, 31 is a sign of fear. Lineman are generally okay until 34.

[illone]

If we followed a more frugal plan and were still in our current situation, people would be crowing about the front office not spending enough to make our team competitive.

At least we can say they are trying to field the best team possible. It hasn't worked thus far for the Skins, but the same could be said for 25 other NFL teams who haven't been successful over the past five seasons.

I could care less about Snyder over spending. It's when we pay a player who doesn't work well with the team or system we have that irks me. If LF brings our defense back to form in 2007, I hardly think I'll complain about the huge money he made to play here. If he ends up getting cut in a year a la Archuleta, then you can say it's a bad decision.

There were a few other teams that spent WAY more than us this off-season. We did what we had to do to get the guys the team felt they needed.

Not until the final analysis will we really know if LB as a bad investment.

[terpfan]

Just wait for the next fluff article.... and then I expect you to be screaming that Chris Cooley should be the highest paid TE in the NFL.

He should be.

If he's not, I don't think he's going to be here. Daniel Graham is the highest paid TE in the league right now.

[TheLongshot]

No...I don't feel that way at all. I think Griffin is going to be pretty good this year. And I think Portis has two strong years left in him before he enters Jamal Lewis territory.

Well, Griffin will be good, if just that he'll have better guys in the rotation to help him to keep him fresh. As for Portis, I think he'll last longer than that, if just that he's going to be splitting more time with Betts, and the Skins will run less.


I think Smoot is going to be better than he was in Minny, but I think his days as a "feared" CB are just about over.

Was Smoot ever "feared"? I still think he's a damn good corner.


My concern is always the "WHY" of a decline. Brandon Lloyd stunk last year because he has bad hands, poor route-running, and a crappy attitude. I don't see that changing with Mr. Shin Splints.

Why do people keep saying Lloyd has bad hands? I didn't see him drop many passes. Mostly, I saw a lot of bad throws. As for attitude, I think I'd have a crappy attitude if I was having such a poor season.

In any case, it looks like he has done a lot of work in the offseason to improve. We'll see how that translates the field on Saturday.

I can't argue with most of what you've been saying (tho I disagree about Pittsburgh players). It is too bad we don't agree on more things.

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I can't argue with most of what you've been saying (tho I disagree about Pittsburgh players). It is too bad we don't agree on more things.



Aside from Rod Woodson, who continued playing at a high level at the age of 53, name a player that the Steelers lost in free agency who kept playing at a high level for a number of years.

Never mind, I'll do it for you.

Leon Searcy
Chad Brown
Orpheus Roye
Mike Vrabel
Plaxico Burress

Of those, the only one who left this century is Burress.

[TheLongshot]

Of those, the only one who left this century is Burress.

Actually, Chad Brown was briefly with the Steelers last year and was released again. Don't know how good he is anymore, tho.

I guess you think ARE is "done".

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Actually, Chad Brown was briefly with the Steelers last year and was released again. Don't know how good he is anymore, tho.

I guess you think ARE is "done".

Jason

Chad Brown if 45 years old, I think.

As for ARE, I don't think hes done. It's just way too early to say. I also did not list Chris Hope.

I don't think ARE was ever that important to them though.

[shoefly72]

He looks like a great addition now, and I'm sure he'll have a great year. But how many linebackers, or players at any position for that matter, play well when they are 37? Not many. This reminds me of the deal we signed Brunell to, where we're still paying him while he's 41. That's way too old.