Saturday, June 25, 2011
Weekend mailbag: Redskins and receivers
By Dan Graziano
See, how it works is, you e-mail the questions, I sort through them, delete all the profane and insulting ones and answer the ones I think are the most interesting. A democracy? No. Just a lil' ol' weekend mailbag.
tmcsfinest from Toronto thrilled us all Friday morning with a stirring tale of his efforts to post a question on the mailbag. His problem apparently was that his question was too long, so he posted it instead as a comment on a post about the Giants hiring Larry Izzo. Fortunately for him, I read almost all of the comments -- even the ones that have nothing to do with the post under which they sit. Unfortunately for him, he was right about his question being too long, so I can't copy/paste the whole thing here. Basically, he asks if I think it'd be smart for the Redskins to add to their wide receiving corps via trade or free agency, because what they have there isn't great and there are some interesting options on the market.
Dan Graziano: No doubt, receiver is a need the Redskins should address if they can. The issue is that some of the names you suggest (Lee Evans, Darrius Heyward-Bey) likely wouldn't be big enough upgrades over what they already have to justify parting with resources to acquire them. Free agents such as Braylon Edwards and New York Steve Smith don't fit the No. 1 wideout description. Sidney Rice is an injury question, and Vincent Jackson and Carolina's Steve Smith will be pricey. Considering that no one they bring in will have an established NFL quarterback throwing to him, I'm not sure it's wise for Washington to deal away a bunch of picks for a star or commit long-term dollars to the relative flotsam that's out there on the free agent market when they're probably gearing up to position themselves to draft their quarterback of the future next spring. Yes, they need help at receiver. But given the probable price of upgrading, I wonder if they might just be better off bringing back Santana Moss and finding out a little bit more about what Anthony Armstrong's got.
Evan O'Gibney, a Long Branch, N.J. native, checks in from Baghdad with a question about the Giants. Evan is "worried about the Giants" because "Jerry Reese is too conservative, Coughlin is starting to get surrounded by more players who weren't there when they won the big one and just see the hard-nosed coach and don't respond well. Brandon Jacobs is not worth the money he's making over the next two seasons and our O-line is all but about to start collecting social security. And I'm still not over the decision to not trade up to get Rolando McClain when ILB is by far our biggest need instead of getting ANOTHER DE. (i like JPP, but it wasnt the right move, backflips dont count in hall of fame votes)"
DG: Couldn't have said it better myself, Evan. I don't like the way the Giants have made their offseason decisions the past couple of years. I've been clear on this. And I think, if they don't address that linebacker position in free agency and add some offensive line depth, they're setting themselves up for disappointment. But as you'll see if you check back on the comments in a few hours, there are many Giants fans who think I'm all about unwarranted doom and gloom. I'll just point out, again, that you and I have played in as many playoff games as the Giants have in the past two seasons.
Bill in D.C. wonders what will become of Barry Cofield if he and the Giants part ways in free agency, and if I "think he could play the 5 technique in a 3-4? He seems to have the speed and size (6'4", 309) to do so. If so, he might make an interesting addition to the Dallas D line."
DG: Cofield has played on the inside in the 4-3 in New York, and I confess I don't know much about the technical aspects of making a position switch like that. My gut tells me it'd be easier than, say, switching to 4-3 defensive end. And given the freedoms that talented players enjoy in Rob Ryan's scheme, it's possible the five-technique in Dallas won't be a traditional five-technique position. Certainly, if you put him on the same side as DeMarcus Ware, he might not have to worry as much about rushing the passer or keeping offensive tackles off his linebacker. It's an interesting thought, but I can't offer any insight into whether it's something Cofield himself would want to do.
Andrew in Dallas wants to know, if the Eagles are going to have as much cap room as it appears they will, "why don't they re-sign some key players (like DeSean Jackson) to a contract with a lot of money this season to lower the price for later years? By front-loading the contracts, they could build in more room in later caps, in addition to locking up vital players."
DG: In theory, sure. But the Eagles are thinking about winning this year, and I imagine they'd rather dole out up-front money to players who can help with that than worry about the long-term situation with Jackson. And Jackson's situation is its own mess, as I believe he plans to hit the open market with Drew Rosenhaus at his side and see what he can get. I'm not even sure Jackson would be interested in locking up long-term at a price the Eagles would find acceptable right now. In short, I think the Eagles are focused a lot more on a 2011 Super Bowl run than they are on cap room in future years.
Keep the questions coming, folks. And if they don't fit in the mailbag, as tmcsfinest showed, you can always just throw them into some random post during the week and hope I find them. It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world...