HOUND

John Clayton of ESPN reported that Young took it prior to the combine and got a horribly low score but it wasn't as bad as the 6 that was being reported. He took it again at the combine and got a 16. Still a pretty bad score but definitely not a 6. Clayton did go on to discount the first test saying that the true wunderlic is a timed test. Some players screw around the first time they take it and thus post abysmal scores. Clayton's take

Actually it was both! First he had knee issues. Then he blew out his achilles. Guy is damaged goods with an inflated self worth. I'll pass.

I would've liked to have seen Moss do more than simply run the 40. His speed was the one thing that really nobody doubted. However I would've been real curious to see how he reacted to the over the shoulder deep routes or running the gauntlet. Regardless, I tend to agree he'll go before our 2nd spot and shouldn't be on our radar in round 1.

Give credit where it's due .... even though I don't necessarily agree with Armstead's offseason plan, his call for drafting Chad Jackson prior to the guy's stock exploding at the combine was keen insight.

If he's an unrestricted free agent then there wouldn't be a cap hit.

Whittle's cut goes towards what I was mentioning in my original critique of your plan. The Giants likely have the fallback option of Whitfield but hopefully there is an intention to add a Left Tackle prospect on draft day. I'm sorry to see Whittle go as I like his depth and versatility but given my choice of keeping Whittle and not drafting a prospect or cutting Whittle I'm happy with the direction we went. I think one aspect that's being forgotten in the wake of the Green cut is Emmons can play both strong and weak side. Torbor has been slotted on the strong side but I wouldn't be surprised to see him at weak either. He's got better playmaking skills and speed than Emmons. It's just a case of how quickly he could learn the position. At this point the curve shouldn't be too steep.

Gateb if you need me to explain this again I will but take my word for it. No CBA means the Skins are GUTTED this upcoming season.

I saw Cutler throw and came away impressed. I didn't see this hitch you guys are referring to. There were a few throws where he took a relatively long windup but his arm strength was definitely among the best in the group. As for the long delivery I think that becomes more of an issue when you have a QB that doesn't have the arm strength of a guy like Cutler. He did demonstrate that he doesn't need the windup to get some oomph on his throws. I don't see how anybody could knock Cutler's performance. I came away with a better opinion of him than I previously had. Brodie Croyle on the other hand was unimpressive in my eyes. I thought his footwork was real sloppy. When you combine that with marginal armstrength you've got a guy who isn't cut out to be a starting QB.

Good post. All too many people are forgetting what kind of year we were coming off of when we traded for Whittle. It was a move to improve our depth and versatility.

It's definitely posturing at this point to try to drive the price. Casserly was on the NFL Network and did give a sneak peek as to how far down the Texans might be willing to trade back. He made a specific point about that it wouldn't make sense to trade out of a position to draft a player as special as Reggie Bush. My translation of that statement is that they'd trade down for D'Brick and that's about it. There's no way they'll trade out of the top 10 unless it's a Herschel.

Actually I could see the Ravens letting him walk. They drafted a kid named Roderick Green two years ago. Incredible athlete with a good all around game. However he's got a two cent melon (He got like a 4 on the wunderlic). He's got the same measurables as Scott and could move into his position (although his pass rush skills would ideally put him on the outside). He's also cheap (was a 5th round draft choice in the '04 draft). His emergence might make Polley more expendable as Green probably would perform better on the outside, but either way, I see one of those linebackers leaving Baltimore.

Couldn't have phrased it better if I typed it myself. I've said more times than I can count that the 3rd receiver position, heck the 2nd receiver too, is not nearly as important in our current offense because of Shockey and Barber's receiving skills. I just don't see where our offense is markedly improved by adding another receiving threat. We've got plenty of weapons. Ideally? Sure it would be great. But do we need it? Not really. I'll even speculate a little more that let's just say we do draft Jackson and he's everything you say he'll be. Pretty soon Plax starts bitching about the number of looks he's getting. Shockey will likely chime in too. Do we need another large ego receiving threat? Methinks no. Granted this is a ton of speculation on my part but I hardly think it's a stretch. But to repeat what Money said, I'm pretty much in favor of drafting the best player available when we go on the clock. If that's Jackson so be it. But I don't think the #1 offense in the league is a precursor to postseason success. But the #1 defense???? I like our chances.

Gotcha .... agreed.

I could be wrong about this as I never watched the Ravens during this stretch but I could swear that I read they were using Scott and Polley interchangeably inside and outside. I didn't think one was dedicated to just one slot. Although I agree Polley on the outside is a far better use of his skill set.

If I'm coming off as being condescending I apologize, I'm really not trying to lecture you on this. And for what it's worth, the final drive against Minnesota employed several blitz packages not necessarily disguised 3-4's. Just because Osi's dropping back doesn't make it one. We were sending guys from everywhere. I remember, because it drove me crazy that Lewis decided to blitz at that point. We were getting excellent pressure all game without blitzing. Then we sent everyone and Brad Johnson handled it like he knew it was coming.

Am I the only one who deosn't have a problem with Hufnagel?

I'm not necessarily arguing that point. But, as I mentioned, if there's no deal prior to this season the Redskins are going to get bad in a hurry. The chances of an uncapped NFL structure are about as good as the chances of Major League Baseball adopting one. I wouldn't worry.

I already read the article. I'm not contesting anything it says. But the fate of the Giants future, especially in regards to revenues, does not hang in the balance over the course of the next 4-5 years. The new stadium deal will significantly improve their revenues. Whether that translates to increased spending by the club is a whole different argument, but you don't have to worry about the Giants as a small fish in the pond. And while yes, both sides need to agree on the deal, the fact of the matter is that the owners hold all the cards. There will be a new deal at some point and it will include a cap. It may not be approved in the next few months, and as I already mentioned, especially in regard to the Redskins, that may not be that bad a thing for us. If you want to sweat over this stuff feel free but I'm not losing any sleep.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid ... owners make PLENTY of money. The big difference in profits lies between owners who OWN, not lease, their stadiums. Regardless, none of these guys are going broke.

Welcome aboard and nice work with good insights. While I see the reasoning behind a lot of your selections I firmly believe that adding defensive playmakers will take this team to the next level moreso than anything we might add on offense. I also beleive that finding a guy who can replace Luke Petigout as early as 2007 is more important than finding Amani Toomer's replacement. While I think we've seen everything Tim Carter can give us I still don't think the Jamar Taylor experiment should be considered done and buried. I don't think it's a reach at this point to say that by the beginning of 2007 Jamar Taylor could play Amani Toomer's spot. However that will require him to stay healthy and gain some good experience this season. I'd also caution you not to think of this years draft as a vehicle for supplying us with instant starters for the upcoming season, It rarely works that well and if we have to depend on that we're running a big risk. I also tend to think you might be a bit too optimistic in our defense as it stands now. While I realize we lost some starters due to injury, your proposed defense for 2006 is not terribly different personell than what we had this past year. I don't see it being superior enough that we'd make a deep playoff run. Can we win the division? Yes. Can we win a playoff game? Maybe. But the current defense isn't nearly talented or deep enough to be a consistent dominant force and I firmly believe that that's how you win championships.

Here's 3 things that should likely put your fears to rest. First, the NFL owners have long had much more negotiating power than the players Union. The NFLPA is a joke. If the owners were able to negotiate a cap into place once, they damn sure aren't going to approve any deal that doesn't sustain it moving forward. The Players Union doesn't have enough clout to effectively negotiate an uncapped league. Dallas and Washington are among the team leaders in revenue however keep in mind that once the Giants new stadium is built they'll almost certainly be in the top 10. The current stadium isn't nearly as profitable across the board in luxury suite and concessions revenues. A new building will solve a lot of those woes. So worrying about a future landscape where the Giants are considered somewhat "small market" compared to their rivals isn't very accurate. Although I'll agree that we'll still never be a team that spends money the way Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder would. Lastly, while it may seem that teams like Washington will go crazy in an uncapped market in the short term it may hurt them. Fat Lenny had a good article about this recently in which one AFC Cap Manager said he ran all the figures on the Skins for the comng season and if a CBA is NOT approved they'll be unable to meet the salary cap. In that scenario the team would get gutted worse than a fish, and even cutting the players wouldn't provide as much cap relief as one might think as in most cases their cap hit would accelerate to this season. Regardless, if the CBA isn't approved prior to this season the Redskins are screwed. Whereas if it is approved then the Skins have room to move as they can restructure contracts to allow for '07 and beyon cap charges.

That description wasn't harsh, it was 100% accurate. Williams has been a major disappointment since he's entered the league. He was drafted to be the cornerstone Left Tackle for the franchise and last year he couldn't even hold down the right side starting gig. I'm amazed as I really liked Williams coming out of Texas. He looked like a sure thing.

I tend to agree that I'll be shocked if Greisen gets a rich deal elsewhere but to be honest we can get a guy with as much talent and better upside than Greisen for similar money in free agency. When Nick's healthy I like his effort as a reserve but the guy simply cannot stay healthy. Even if he were to accept backups money I still think we should at least explore other options. I said in Money's thread that a guy like Rocky Calmus on Indy, would be a better addition than keeping Greisen, and he'd likely cost about the same. He's had some injury issues of his own but I think he's a better player than Nick and he has yet to play his best ball. I think we've seen the best Greisen can put forward.

Funny thing is, at this point in his career a schmuck off the street probably turns out better articles than Fattty McButterpants does. Excellent latte reference Boohyah. I got the joke, even if nobody else did

That reason would be $$$$$$