Good character players VS quality players- Which players are more important to have on the Redskins?

[brandymac27]

I know we've all debated over whether certain players should ever become a Redskin, and I hear a lot of "heck no, he's a cancer" or "yeah, he's a great locker room guy". I'm wondering, in the grand scheme of things, which player is more important to have on the team long term?

I mean, let's take T.O, Ocho Cinco (when they were in their primes), and a guy like Michael Vick (or any other player that has "cancerous" reputation). Would it have been beneficial to the Redskins to pick these guys up in FA, even though they don't fit the "Gibb's character guy" type of mold (as an example of what we consider good character guys)? Would we be farther along now, had we not worried about character as opposed to the output they provide on the field?

And do you think good coaching can help a player's bad attitude/character? For example, do you think a coach like Gibbs or Mike S. could have changed certain cancerous players into good attitude, team first guys?

And overall, do you think our "cancerous" players are as bad as others in the league? Personally, I don't. I mean, we've had our share of "me first" guys and what not, but I don't think any of our "cancers" have compared to some of the others in the league.

So, what do you think? Should we value quality output higher than character, and bring guys in even if they have shaky reputations? Could this help our team become competitive again? Maybe good coaching can help improve their attitude?

[B&GVol24]

I'm not sure the poll is consistent with the question in the OP.

Are "quality" and "character" mutually exclusive? What about guys like Kerrigan? Or Fletch? For one to be "quality", does this mean they lack "character"? (Just playing devil's advocate here, brandy :))

But regarding the main question in the OP (at least as I interpret it) as to whether or not to take risks on questionable or "low-character" guys, I think it should probably be a case-by-case basis. While some guys just have a few slip ups, some are obviously bad seeds that I wouldn't want on the team, especially during a rebuild or "cleansing" phase. But sure, I think some players could behave and stay out of trouble given the right direction and coaching staff.

For example, I'd be more inclined to take a chance on a guy that's a little "out there" like Brandon Marshall than a guy who's just a thug like Pac-man Jones.

[sportjunkie07]

well i think its safe to assume that most teams, even ours, are going to have a mix of the two.. everyone makes mistakes and "cancerous" labels given by the media are not always as they seem.

when choosing between 2 players though, im gonna err on the side of the character guy unless there is a big talent disparity.

i dont think we are in a position to have guys with major character issues atm.

[brandymac27]

I'm not sure the poll is consistent with the question in the OP.

Are "quality" and "character" mutually exclusive? What about guys like Kerrigan? Or Fletch? For one to be "quality", does this mean they lack "character"? (Just playing devil's advocate here, brandy :))

But regarding the main question in the OP (at least as I interpret it) as to whether or not to take risks on questionable or "low-character" guys, I think it should probably be a case-by-case basis. While some guys just have a few slip ups, some are obviously bad seeds that I wouldn't want on the team, especially during a rebuild or "cleansing" phase. But sure, I think some players could behave and stay out of trouble given the right direction and coaching staff.

For example, I'd be more inclined to take a chance on a guy that's a little "out there" like Brandon Marshall than a guy who's just a thug like Pac-man Jones.

Yeah, I agree I worded the poll/OP a little funny. To me a guy like Fletcher is both a good character guy and is a high quality player. I'm not talking about guys like that. I'm basically assuming that we'd have to pick one characteristic over the over when signing/drafting a player.

As an example: would you rather have a running back (player X) with the exact same personality/character as Big Al who consistently rushes for over 100 plus yards every game, OR would you rather have a guy (player Y) who is equivalent in quality/talent to L. Betts (when he was here) who has the character/personality of London Fletcher?

[thebluefood]

I think you have to have a mix of the two, but most important is having a solid coach who not only knows the X's and O's, but is a (unofficial) shrink. If you don't have a coach that can handle a mix of personalities, it doesn't matter how talented folks are. You're not going anywhere.

[Jumbo]

At times it feels a bit incongruous to so strongly value high standards of character on the team, but in a forum where those standards seem, shall we say, pretty flexible among the membership :pfft: .

[FrFan]

We need both, I don't think you can build a great team without one of them. The good character guys can have a positive influence on the quality players, and vice versa. Fletch being the epitome of these values in one single player. We are very fortunate to have him, and as I said in another post I wish we will sign him as our linebackers coach as soon as he retires.

[PokerPacker]

you need guys that play for each other.

[Burgold]

You want the vast majoroity of players on your team to be "good" character guys. Guys who train, work with the coaches, and have a strong work ethic. You can survive having a few prima donas or idiots who are hyper talented, but idiots. If anything, the Redskins of the Cerrato years have shown us that talent alone doesn't buy you wins. We had some extremely talented teams (on paper) and were too often a losing or average team.

[CrabR]

by Character guy I mean Chad Johnson,To etc

So how many have won the Super Bowl with a Character guy ?

[GWinSkins83]

I think if most of the team is high character players and you got a good coach. You can mix in some low character highly talented guys n u should be okay.

[KDawg]

At times it feels a bit incongruous to so strongly value high standards of character on the team, but in a forum where those standards seem, shall we say, pretty flexible among the membership :pfft: .

Is this english? I think my head just exploded. :ols:

Incongruous threw me for a real tizzy.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

I went with the 3rd choice. We need playmakers and if they have a slight troubled past well im fine with that. Look at Percy Harvin, he was caught with pot in his system before the draft, he fell a little from what i remember and IMO hes a stud.

[gchwood]

I want quality guys with good character.

[Painkiller]

I want quality players WITH good character. I don't think you have to sacrifice one or the other. I think there are plenty of players that qualify as having both talent and heart. Of course, there are always different personality types, and sometimes a guy for whatever reason just doesn't fit in with the dynamic of your locker room, or your leadership from the coaches down. As long as the guy doesn't become a distraction or detrimental to the morale of the team, you can work with him. Sometimes people have to adapt to one another for the betterment of the whole. Seeing the big picture if you will.

and then you get guys like Haynesworth.

[authentic]

I agree with the majority here. Personally i value character, but you can't always discriminate based on character, especially if he's a special talent... You need those players to be successful. You also need a coach and a solid organization to keep him in check.

[2cents]

It's all balance. Our D-line used to have Charles Mann and Dexter. Balance.....

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think we should only have players with the highest character - like John Riggins and Dexter Manley.

[Pwyl]

I think there's a minimum character threshold that needs to be met, and then after that you would decide on a case-by-case basis.
For me the minimum would be enough character that on-field production isn't inhibited, whether it's off-field antics resulting in suspensions etc.(pac man jones, vince young) or bad work habits (devin thomas).
All three of those guys had the physical talent to excel, but their poor character caused them to not be able to implement it on the field.

[brandymac27]

So far, I seem to agree with the people who say there should be a balance. I definitely don't think we should overlook a T.O type of guy just b/c he has some character issues. OTOH, I'm not so sure I want a guy like Big Al with all his problems on the team either.

[Dirt]

I think it's important to establish the culture first; good character guys even if they're lacking in talent, until you have a team with nothing but that. Then when new guys, or talented FAs come in, they should get a quick impression that everyone has each other's back, and if you're not with that you won't last long on the team, whether you're a maybe-hall-of-famer(donnyvan) or the highest paid guy(turd butler hayensworth)

[Renegade7]

I don't care, because Shallen has proven a pattern of getting rid of players who's character issues hurt the team. Haynesworth, Portis, Rodgers.

Even though players like Banks and Hall are still in on the roster, I feel like those issues are being handled internally and their talent out weighs whatever detriment the coaches feel they're possibly having. Fans have their own opinions, but I trust this coaching staffs perspective of what's really going on.

We aren't afraid to get rid of anyone, so again, I don't care...

[skinny21]

I don't care, because Shallen has proven a pattern of getting rid of players who's character issues hurt the team. Haynesworth, Portis, Rodgers.

Even though players like Banks and Hall are still in on the roster, I feel like those issues are being handled internally and their talent out weighs whatever detriment the coaches feel they're possibly having. Fans have their own opinions, but I trust this coaching staffs perspective of what's really going on.

We aren't afraid to get rid of anyone, so again, I don't care...

Yep. As long as a player gives good effort in games as well as practice, no problem. Its good to have a core of high character guys (especially vets) at the foundation, but anyone brought in with character issues will be dealt with.

[skinsarel33t]

Good Character doesnt win football games.

[jflow78]

I want good character, but it DOES depend on the definition of "good character". If a guy is a great hard worker and teammate and plays hard, and doesn't get into any big off-the-field issues, then that's "good character" to me.

If he's a lazy slob and doesn't have any off-the-field issues, he's not good character IMO, because he's robbing his boss, teammates, and coaches. If you have no interesting in working in the NFL, you shouldn't PLAY in the NFL.

---------- Post added November-24th-2011 at 02:10 AM ----------


Good Character doesnt win football games.

Tell that to the Packers. They are very honest about their desire to have great character players and part of the reason they have guys go down with injury and don't miss a beat is because they have backups that are working their ***** off, rather than partying every night.

---------- Post added November-24th-2011 at 02:11 AM ----------


I want quality players WITH good character. I don't think you have to sacrifice one or the other. I think there are plenty of players that qualify as having both talent and heart. Of course, there are always different personality types, and sometimes a guy for whatever reason just doesn't fit in with the dynamic of your locker room, or your leadership from the coaches down. As long as the guy doesn't become a distraction or detrimental to the morale of the team, you can work with him. Sometimes people have to adapt to one another for the betterment of the whole. Seeing the big picture if you will.

and then you get guys like Haynesworth.

Perfectly said.

[Rdskns2000]

I would say if someone of bad character consistently displays it; then you don't want that person. I would never want TO on this team. Corey Dillon became a pain for the Bengals but was alright when he played for the Pats.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Good Character doesnt win football games.

Good character correlates strongly to work ethic and willingness to be a team player. Both of those qualities are pretty damn important when it comes to winning football games.

[Redskins4ever]

Good character correlates strongly to work ethic and willingness to be a team player. Both of those qualities are pretty damn important when it comes to winning football games.

I couldn't have said it better myself. If you look back in the days to Gibbs' Redskin teams that he coached for 12 seasons, every player on those rosters for those 12 seasons were character guys. They weren't the most athletic or even the most talented. But they had excellent character, a trait is overlooked in today's feel good society. Pete Cronan, Neal Olkawicz, Jeff Bostic, Joe Theisman, Dave But, Darrell Green, Art Monk, Kelvin Bryant, John Riggins, Ernest Byner, Ricky Ervins, and so many others. Your organization doesn't succeed without it's members having great character. In today's society, character is a quality that is mostly overlooked.

---------- Post added November-24th-2011 at 03:28 AM ----------


I couldn't have said it better myself. If you look back in the days to Gibbs' Redskin teams that he coached for 12 seasons, every player on those rosters for those 12 seasons were character guys. They weren't the most athletic or even the most talented. But they had excellent character, a trait that is overlooked in today's feel good society. Pete Cronan, Neal Olkawicz, Jeff Bostic, Joe Theisman, Dave But, Darrell Green, Art Monk, Kelvin Bryant, John Riggins, Ernest Byner, Ricky Ervins, and so many others. Your organization doesn't succeed without it's members having great character. In today's society, character is a quality that is mostly overlooked.

[skinsarel33t]

London Fletcher doesnt make good plays because he has good character he makes plays because he has skill. TO didnt have good character but was a monster on the field. Ray Lewis is mean on the field he is a good player. If it was all about character you would want all Reed Doughtys on your team and you wouldent win one game. Having good character is nice but it does not overtake skill. Also Define good character? You can be a mean *** person off the field or off the court and still have good work ethic. Sean Taylor did not have the best of good character but in the locker room he was one hell of a teammate and he gave his all every single play, he didnt have much good character in him.

[DM72]

This isn't the boy scouts. I want guys that can play. Sean Taylor is praised on this site and he was no boy scout.

[Warhead36]

I really don't care that much about character, as long as they work hard, play smart, and win games. What they do off the field is up to them and as long as they're not commiting heinous felonies I couldn't care less. The 90s Cowboys had terrible "character" but won 3 Super Bowls.

[jflow78]

London Fletcher doesnt make good plays because he has good character he makes plays because he has skill. TO didnt have good character but was a monster on the field. Ray Lewis is mean on the field he is a good player. If it was all about character you would want all Reed Doughtys on your team and you wouldent win one game. Having good character is nice but it does not overtake skill. Also Define good character? You can be a mean *** person off the field or off the court and still have good work ethic. Sean Taylor did not have the best of good character but in the locker room he was one hell of a teammate and he gave his all every single play, he didnt have much good character in him.

Reed Doughty doesn't make bad plays because he has good character, if we're going to use your logic, then use it both ways. There are plenty of good character guys that are hard working and are talented players. The Packers are pretty much a collection of very talented good character guys. We also have a few good character guys who are talented on the Skins, depending on what your definition of "good character" means. IMO, Laron Landry is a talented good character player, so is Orakpo, Kerrigan, Fletcher, Hall, Atogwe, Moss, Trent Williams, Fred Davis (though I question his intelligence sometimes).

How many really "bad character" guys are there in the NFL anyway? The Pats seemed to do better with character guys than they have since getting Moss (3 SBs vs 0). Same goes for nearly any team in the league. The honest truth is that there really aren't THAT many "bad" guys in the league, so it shouldn't be hard to find "good" guys who are talented.

As far as ST goes, his talent really only started coming to the forefront AFTER he learned to control his off-the-field actions.

---------- Post added November-24th-2011 at 03:25 PM ----------


I really don't care that much about character, as long as they work hard, play smart, and win games. What they do off the field is up to them and as long as they're not commiting heinous felonies I couldn't care less. The 90s Cowboys had terrible "character" but won 3 Super Bowls.

To be honest, there were only a couple guys on the Cowboys who had "bad character". Irvin and a lineman or two. The rest of the team, from what I remember, didn't participate in Irvins' coke ring. I'm pretty sure Smith and Aikman (though he's a douche) were good character guys.

[C26 Run]

We need both but for this team we need quality players. Players that will step up to the coach and ask him to do something different. I'm not saying players should be disrespectful of the Head coach or any of the coordinators or assistants. Shanahan once talked about Brent Jones when he was with the 49ers. Jones and Steve Young contributed to the 49ers offensive play calling under then coordinator Mike Shanahan. Both players are quality and good character guys.

:helmet:

[skinsarel33t]

Well i mean the question is what would you rather have Quality players or Good character players. Now assuming that the meaning of this thread meant Quality players means bad character, and Good character means bad quality then you have to go with the Quality. I think the title of this thread should be "Well behaved players Vs Players with off field issues" then its obvious what the correct answer is.

[jflow78]

Well i mean the question is what would you rather have Quality players or Good character players. Now assuming that the meaning of this thread meant Quality players means bad character, and Good character means bad quality then you have to go with the Quality. I think the title of this thread should be "Well behaved players Vs Players with off field issues" then its obvious what the correct answer is.

Maybe that was the point of the thread, but in reality, there are probably 6 bad character players in the entire league that have enough talent for you to even consider taking them. Most of the league is filled with good character (or mediocre) talented players. Nearly every QB, OL, DL, LB, CB, S, RB, WR, TE, K, P are good character guys, so trying to say you can only pick good character talentless players is inane.

Good character doesn't mean bad player (London), and bad character doesn't mean great player (Albert). And the question being what's MORE important for the team is too ambiguous to nail down any real definition, so we're probably all arguing over different discussions and definitions. Anyway, I say we don't have to sacrifice anything. The Packers have both great talent and great character, the Bucs have both poor talent and poor character. I'd say you can find more players who are great players and good characters than great players who are bad characters.

[HailGreen28]

After seeing Sue's antics today, I'll take character AND quality over poor character. Like Cofield, Carriker, and Bowen.

[Painkiller]

After seeing Sue's antics today, I'll take character AND quality over poor character. Like Cofield, Carriker, and Bowen.

That guy needs help man. He is a loose cannon, especially after his bull **** explanation. "The man upstairs knows what I did?"

Seriously dude? The guy is crazy and delusional.

[brettstr]

That guy needs help man. He is a loose cannon, especially after his bull **** explanation. "The man upstairs knows what I did?"

Seriously dude? The guy is crazy and delusional.

Sadly, I informed this board almost a year ago that Suh was OVERATED. Many thought I was delusional. I stated his talent would not be enough to make him great in this league. Suh has many obstacles to overcome and many will see an unsual beast come out even more defiantly. There are soome that run in my circle who say this guy is a time bomb and needs meds quickly.
Hint: Big Mike

Hail:)

[thomasroane]

We need both, I don't think you can build a great team without one of them. The good character guys can have a positive influence on the quality players, and vice versa. Fletch being the epitome of these values in one single player. We are very fortunate to have him, and as I said in another post I wish we will sign him as our linebackers coach as soon as he retires.

That's my philosophy. I like about 85% Character with about 15% thugs mixed in. You need some of those guys that would pull out some brass knuckles in a hot minute.

[brettstr]

That's my philosophy. I like about 85% Character with about 15% thugs mixed in. You need some of those guys that would pull out some brass knuckles in a hot minute.

I hear you about being tenacious, thug is not the word I would use..

[renaissance]

I would define a quality player as having good character, so there's no choice for me. If someone like DeSean Jackson were to come to the Redskins, I would not be happy.

[RonArtest15]

After seeing Sue's antics today, I'll take character AND quality over poor character. Like Cofield, Carriker, and Bowen.

And I'd take suh 10x/10 over any of the guys you named. He plays NASTY on the field, but is a very good man off of it. What he did yesterday was dumb, but stuff like that happens every week in the NFL. Off hand, I can remember Charles Woodson throwing a kidney punch and a d-lineman on the Vikes kicking at another man's groin....it goes on and on.

Out of curiosity, what's your take on the Skins having guys like Niles Paul, Mike Sellars, and Brandon Banks on the roster? They've all made piss-poor choices off the field. Bad character, right?

[Win4us]

Went with option 3, as long as the majority have good morals and work ethic though. The high character guys can keep the headcases in check for the most part.

[CoolHandLuke]

Do you guys think Shanahan would have drafted Sean Taylor(RIP) with his off the field issues? DUI, Armed Assault... Something tells me Shanahan would have passed on him because of his "Character" issues.

I'm all for the rebuild but I think it should be 90% talent & 10% character. If the guy's character IS affecting his play(Haynesworth) then take a pass, but if you have a player who's character does NOT affect his play(ST, VY) then it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

[RonArtest15]

Do you guys think Shanahan would have drafted Sean Taylor(RIP) with his off the field issues? DUI, Armed Assault... Something tells me Shanahan would have passed on him because of his "Character" issues.

I'm all for the rebuild but I think it should be 90% talent & 10% character. If the guy's character IS affecting his play(Haynesworth) then take a pass, but if you have a player who's character does NOT affect his play(ST, VY) then it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Shanahan drafted Mo Clarett.....

[brettstr]

I would define a quality player as having good character, so there's no choice for me. If someone like DeSean Jackson were to come to the Redskins, I would not be happy.

Man you said a mouthful. I would not want Jackson on my team either.

---------- Post added November-25th-2011 at 02:05 PM ----------


Shanahan drafted Mo Clarett.....

He also drafted Marshall. You never heard of the headcase issue until Shanny left. So I beleive Shanny can handle the attitudes. Look at what he did for
Alberts carrer.

[CoolHandLuke]

Do you guys think Shanahan would have drafted Sean Taylor(RIP) with his off the field issues? DUI, Armed Assault... Something tells me Shanahan would have passed on him because of his "Character" issues.

I'm all for the rebuild but I think it should be 90% talent & 10% character. If the guy's character IS affecting his play(Haynesworth) then take a pass, but if you have a player who's character does NOT affect his play(ST, VY) then it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

[HailGreen28]

And I'd take suh 10x/10 over any of the guys you named. He plays NASTY on the field, but is a very good man off of it. What he did yesterday was dumb, but stuff like that happens every week in the NFL. Off hand, I can remember Charles Woodson throwing a kidney punch and a d-lineman on the Vikes kicking at another man's groin....it goes on and on.

Out of curiosity, what's your take on the Skins having guys like Niles Paul, Mike Sellars, and Brandon Banks on the roster? They've all made piss-poor choices off the field. Bad character, right?I wouldn't call Banks getting stabbed on the same level. What's the dirt on them?

And it's a child's excuse to point fingers at other people's actions, when talking about Sue's behavior.

Sue has a history of late hits and dirty play in his 2 NFL years so far. Yes, it's part of the game. Like flopping and cheap shots are in basketball. It doesn't make those things right.

[RonArtest15]

I wouldn't call Banks getting stabbed on the same level. What's the dirt on them?

And it's a child's excuse to point fingers at other people's actions, when talking about Sue's behavior.

Sue has a history of late hits and dirty play in his 2 NFL years so far. Yes, it's part of the game. Like flopping and cheap shots are in basketball. It doesn't make those things right.

Banks was poppin' off at the mouth outside of a club to the wrong person and got stabbed....Niles Paul, had multiple alcohol related incidents T nebraska....sellers had a coke possession charge. I'm happy that all 3 guys are on the team despite their poor choices off the field. They could be considered to have "bad character," but a lot of people won't see it that way because of the b&g tinted glasses. Maybe you're one of those people, I don't know....


I brought up Woodson and the Vikes player as a COMPAIRSON to what Suh did. I'm not defending his actions because i clearly stated that what he did was dumb. I'm just questioning whether or not he should be suspended when there are other players around the league who have done just as bad, but were still able to play the following week.

[HailGreen28]

Banks was poppin' off at the mouth outside of a club to the wrong person and got stabbed....Niles Paul, had multiple alcohol related incidents T nebraska....sellers had a coke possession charge. I'm happy that all 3 guys are on the team despite their poor choices off the field. They could be considered to have "bad character," but a lot of people won't see it that way because of the b&g tinted glasses. Maybe you're one of those people, I don't know....


I brought up Woodson and the Vikes player as a COMPAIRSON to what Suh did. I'm not defending his actions because i clearly stated that what he did was dumb. I'm just questioning whether or not he should be suspended when there are other players around the league who have done just as bad, but were still able to play the following week.Since when is "Poppin his mouth to the wrong person" something to deserve a stabbing or suspension?

Not happy about some players past activities, but again, what does that have to do with Sue? The Skins you mention aren't dirty players like he is.

Sure, who else was twisting a guys head and stomping on him this week? Let's suspend them multiple games too. Got any more names than Sue?

[jflow78]

Do you guys think Shanahan would have drafted Sean Taylor(RIP) with his off the field issues? DUI, Armed Assault... Something tells me Shanahan would have passed on him because of his "Character" issues.

I'm all for the rebuild but I think it should be 90% talent & 10% character. If the guy's character IS affecting his play(Haynesworth) then take a pass, but if you have a player who's character does NOT affect his play(ST, VY) then it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I'm pretty sure ST only had those issues AFTER being drafted, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm all for 2nd chances, but I'm not about to go looking for someone who I think "I can change him". That's not a healthy POV. I'd be with you, except that I would include "affecting his play" as those who are disciplined due to bad character because that completely STOPS them from playing.

[ciresolstice]

character is great, and matters a lot...I wouldn't sell that short..but we need talent and playmakers..everyone can't be a choir boy. a mix of both is ideal obviously...but I'd rather have over achievers with a good work ethic, than a talent that doesn't care ie a haynesworth.

[Hollywood1127]

They need to get some good quality guys on this team. Other teams have gone with quality over character and done far better than what we have.

[nuposse87]

What they do on the field is all I care about. That's their job, they shouldn't be accountable to anyone for what they do off the field so long as its legal. "Character" implies so much subjectivity to it...

[The Dude]

They need to be REAL REDSKINS, burgundy and gold to the core...

[Mr. Nostril]

It's a sliding scale based on how poor the player's character is, how talented the player is, and how strong the organization is.

Randy Moss seems like a great example of what I mean by strength of organization. He was a disaster in Oakland, due mostly to his low character. However, he had a season for the ages in New England, due mostly to his otherworldly talent. The difference being that the Patriots were a strong enough organization to hide his character problems, at least for a while.

However, I think there are players like Albert Haynesworth and Roethlisberger, who I don't care what you're able to contribute on the field, I just don't want that guy on my team.

Of course there are also guys who it doesn't matter how nice they are, I also don't want them. I'll use myself as an example. By most accounts, I'm a totally cool, fun guy. I'd be great in a locker room. But I'm also 5'10", 180 lbs (mostly blubber), I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, and I probably couldn't run a 40 yard dash in under 6 seconds. You don't want me anywhere near a professional football field.

This is why teams make bad signings. Everyone knows that talent is good and being a headcase is bad. But if the two are mixed, it's difficult to determine which outweighs the other, and whether the current coaching staff and roster is able to withstand a headcase in their locker room. You would have to be extremely risk averse to take the position, "I don't want anyone with any character concerns on my team." And given the amount of money NFL owners have made in their lifetime, none of them are extremely risk averse.

Ndamukong Suh is a guy right now that I don't know what to make of. He has serious character concerns. He's also a serious talent. Imagine he was a free agent this offseason (he's not). Would you take a risk on that guy? My opinion is, as the Redskins, no I wouldn't. But if I were the Packers I would. But I might be making the wrong decision on either side. The Redskins might benefit from having that guy, and maybe when removed from Jim Scwartz' misguided attempt to make the team tougher by being a hothead, Suh is no longer a problem. Or maybe Suh is another Haynesworth, in which case no team should be interested.