Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

Flash: Gibbs Will Coach at Least 4 More Years

It is truly inspiring to know that there is a purpose, a greater good, in what I do here. I have a role, I have a place, I provide a needed service.

I am here to calm the frayed nerves of Redskins fans around the world.

Just recently, I assured worried readers that the Redskins would not be suffering from the degradation of character that would result from the acquisition of a certain Minnesota Viking. Now, there's the Joe Gibbs "NFL short, NASCAR forever" comments flap. Lay down on the couch here and let me walk you through why this is nothing new.

The headline and lead quote for the AP story on ESPN.com were certainly, well, startling. Under the headline Gibbs expects short NFL stay, long Cup ride:

"My time in football will be short,'' Gibbs said Tuesday during a stop by the NASCAR media tour at Joe Gibbs Racing. "Hopefully, we'll be here forever. If we don't win a few more games next year, my time in football will be real short.''

Wow, you think. "Short"? "Real short"? Will St. Joe be around for this year's draft? Who's going to replace him? How could Gibbs do this to us? Where's the nearest tall building with an accessible jumping area?

No need to jump. A little further in the article:

"I signed a five-year contract and what I'd like to do is get the Redskins back to being a consistent winner,'' Gibbs said. "I don't know what that will take. I don't know if it's five years or a little longer than that.''

Of course, phrases like "five years" or "a little longer than that" don't make good headlines, especially when the sports media template is that Gibbs won't last long. So you didn't read those quotes, the ones that were the heart of the story and got all bent out of shape.

The headline here should have been:

"Gibbs Plans to Coach at Least Four More Years"

So why the "short" talk from Gibbs? The man, I'm sure, plans on living another 30 years or more. Out of those years, he will spend a half dozen, maybe a couple less, coaching the Redskins. He'll probably own his NASCAR team until he goes to that great sideline or pit row in the sky. In relative terms, his stay with the Redskins will indeed be a short amount time.

Also remember who Gibbs was speaking to. His comments were given during an event associated with NASCAR's season-opening media tour. That means that his audience was NASCAR fans, especially those of his drivers and, more importantly, to the sponsors of Joe Gibbs Racing. Certainly, the folks who put up some long green to back the winner that is Joe Gibbs must have felt some despair in reading a little over a year ago that Gibbs was abandoning his full-time involvement in the venture that they sponsored. Gibbs needed to throw them a bone and he did just that in saying that, like the Terminator, he'll be back.

So calm down, nothing has changed. The bad news is that there still is a lot of work to do to make the Redskins a consistent winner again. The good news is that Joe Gibbs has again committed to staying around until that job is done.

More on Moss to Skins Talk

In the long history of this blog (OK, just five months), there has never been a reaction to an entry the likes of the one received to the Randy Moss trade speculation talk that appeared here last week. There have been so many comments, challenges and questions that a follow up is called for.

First of all, let me clarify my position. The original blog entry focused on one column by Dan Daly of the Times that proposed trading Lavar Arrington, a first and a second pick for Moss and then releasing Mark Brunell to help pay for the deal. There are some who proposed other deals and other ways of making it happen and how to restructure Moss’ deal to make it all fit under the cap. None of that mattered to me. Here is the official Redskins Blog position on the possibility of trading for Randy Moss:

I would not trade a warm six pack for Randy Moss.

Moss is a head case, a problem child, and a cancer.

At some point the six pack can get cold.

With that out of the way, let’s turn to some of the comments I’ve received.

The vast majority thought that trading for Moss would be a bad idea.

There is no way, no how, that Gibbs would back a deal for Moss. . .

I would rather see someone with less talent than Randy Moss who will give 100% on each play. That's the kind of players Joe Gibbs won 3 rings with, not with spoiled primma donnas who only care about themselves. . .

Moss will never be a Redskin. Gibbs wouldn't tolerate him, and at this stage, I doubt even Dan Snyder would want him. . .

As a diehard skins fan, I would be ashamed to have Moss on my team representing our franchise, and I guarantee you that it will not happen. . .

The notion that Joe Gibbs would agree to trade a star player with character for one without is far more prohibitive than the financial restrictions, IMO. . .

Ok, let's just drop all this crazy speculation that we might trade for Moss. His punk arse won't EVER have the privilege of wearing the burgundy and gold, certainly not under Gibbs' watch. You can take THAT to the bank, folks.

On the other hand, there has been some love for the idea of picking up Moss if the right deal is there:

Its a GUARANTEE that whatever team he goes to he will still produce, and if we are winning he will have nothing to complain about! . . .

Why wouldn't you want to have a playmaker on the offense that could change any team? . . .

Well, just not as many lovers as haters.

More amusing were a few Vikings fans who have piped in hoping to spur a trade of Moss. One wrote me to say that the Redskins could convert Moss’ 2005 salary to bonus and spread out the impact. When I explained that the Redskins need no part of additional cap hits in the future, he said:

You are right. I just want to see Minnesota get rid of him.

It seems as though the Daly column has sparked a round of speculation in media throughout the country about the possibility of the Redskins acquiring Moss. Peter King, in a Sports Illustrated.com article speculated that there was a chance that the Redskins would franchise free agent cornerback Fred Smoot and send him and their first-round pick, number 9 overall, to Minnesota for Moss. To his credit, King said that there was only a one in 20 chance of this happening.

The New York Post and the Pioneer Press, a Twin Cities paper, both speculated that a deal that included the Skins’ first rounder and receiver Rod Gardner would work.

Mind you, neither paper nor King cited either a Vikings source or a Redskins source that said such a deal had been proposed by either side. That’s why the word “speculation” is used in both cases.

In their initial round of talks about trading Moss, it seems that the Vikings are trying to make up for one of the biggest trading mistakes that any sports team has ever made. In 1989, they gave up 5 roster players (LB Jesse Solomon, DB Issiac Holt, RB Darrin Nelson, LB David Howard, DE Alex Stewart), and 6 assorted draft picks (conditional 1st & 2nd round in '90 and '91; 1st round and conditional 3rd in '92) in exchange for Herschel Walker. They’re not asking quite that much for Moss, but the initial offers a pretty steep for a 29-year-old receiver.

They aren’t going to get it. No matter who ends up getting Moss, he won’t command a premium player and multiple high draft picks. The reason is simple—everyone knows that the Vikings want to get rid of Moss so it will soon become a buyer’s market. They will be doing well to get a high draft pick OR a good player with maybe another mid-level player or pick thrown in.

Green vs. Vikes in ' 87--The Myth Persists

The myth endures.

On their Website, the Redskins ran an article on the 1987 season NFC Title game against the Minnesota Vikings. The set the stage for the game-turning play:

The Minnesota Vikings had the ball on the Redskins' 6-yard line with 56 seconds left in regulation. The down and distance was fourth and four, but the Vikings were looking for the touchdown. They trailed the Redskins 17-10 in the 1987 NFC Championship Game at RFK Stadium on Jan. 17, 1988.

When they described the play, however, they delved into mythology that Darrell Green himself refutes.

The Vikings called "Smoke 83 Option," a play that would use (WR Anthony) Carter as a decoy in the corner of the end zone and would have (RB Darrin) Nelson in a one-on-one situation with linebacker Monte Coleman just past the goal line.

(QB Wade) Wilson dropped back to pass and found Nelson, who had eluded Coleman as planned. What the Vikings didn't count on was Redskins' all-everything cornerback Darrell Green.

One week after returning the biggest punt of his life--a 52-yard touchdown at Chicago to propel the Redskins to a 21-17 win--Green made possibly the biggest defensive play of his epic 20-year career. Carter was forced into the wrong pattern, leaving Green in position to cover him and make the play.

Green, who had played the whole game with sore ribs suffered on that punt return a week earlier, collided with Nelson as soon as the ball hit the running back in the chest. Green knocked the ball away--and the Redskins were Super Bowl-bound

A review of the play on a recording of the game reveals a couple of key errors in the account. First, Nelson was not in the end zone, he was around the one. Second, Green never touched the ball. Nelson dropped it before he even got there. Even Green himself admits that the ball bounced out of Nelson's hands before he got to the back. After the game Green said:

I looked like I was a hero; everybody thought I knocked it out, but Nelson wouldn't have caught the ball anyway.

Darrell Green accomplished so many outstanding feats on the football field that he doesn't need to get credit for any that he didn't actually do. The record should be set straight.

Moss for Lavar?

I really thought that Dan Daly knew better than this. In a recent column he wrote:

The word out of Minnesota is that the Vikings might be ready to part ways with Randy Moss, their never-a-dull-moment wide receiver. Some people in the organization, important people, are 'exasperated with him,' my friend Kevin Seifert wrote in the Minneapolis Star Tribune earlier this week. 'At the very least, they plan to initiate a substantive internal discussion about Moss and his future with the franchise this offseason.'

It's hard to read that sentence without a picture of Moss in a Redskins uniform popping into your head. I mean, think about it: If the pre-eminent pass catcher in the NFL became available, could Dan Snyder possibly resist taking a run at him?

I doubt it.

[deletia]

Dan the Man has always had a weakness for the Big Splash (see Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith et al.), and trading for Moss would be, well, the Cannonball to End All Cannonballs.

Uh, Dan, the Deion/Smith/George fiasco was five years ago. Even before the grownups, led by Joe Gibbs, came onto the scene Snyder had learned that chasing after big money, big attitude players wasn't they way to go. There is not much chance of a) Snyder asking Gibbs if he could try to cut a deal for Moss and b) Gibbs giving it the green light. It's worse than the odds of Rod Gardner not dropping an easy pass, worse than those of Mark Brunell threading a rope between to defenders 35 yards downfield.

But, we're all allowed to speculate, I guess. But Daly didn't stop there. He proposed a deal that simply could not be done and I'm amazed that he didn't realize it.
So imagine, if you will, this scenario: The Vikings send Moss to the Redskins for their No. 1 pick (ninth overall), a No. 2 (either this year or next) and LaVar Arrington (without whom the Washington defense did just fine this season, ranking third in the league).

[deletia]

The trick would be to make the numbers work. The Redskins would be hit with a huge cap charge if they traded Arrington so early in his deal, but they could alleviate some of it by releasing Mark Brunell, their grossly overpaid backup quarterback.

The numbers don't work, Dan. The cost of trading Arrington and releasing Brunell (the cap consequences are the same in either case) prior to June 1 would be prohibitive. The dead cap for Arrington would be just a shade over $12 million and for Brunell it would be about $3.7 million. Add in Moss' salary of $7.25 million and you have about $23 million, or over a quarter of the cap, tied up in the acquisition of one player.

Again, prohibitive.

Daly does start to redeem himself towards the end of the column, pointing out the obvious reasons why Gibbs would not want to trade for a player that he saw walk out on his team with time still left on the clock. Guys like Gary Clark and John Riggs marched to a different drummer, but they never marched out of the stadium early.

And if he could find a way to be unhappy in Minnesota, where he scored 90 touchdowns in seven seasons, he could certainly find a way to be unhappy in Washington, where the leading receiver scored only one TD in 16 games this year. Like most serial screw-ups, he'd be on his best behavior with the Redskins until he wasn't — and then, heaven help them.

Despite this and despite the financial roadblocks the size of the Hoover Dam, in the end, Daly insists that it still could happen.

But desperate teams do desperate things. They'll even trade for players with more baggage than a 767 — if they're good enough.

I guess if you're a columnist desperate for material you'll come up with something like this.

HOF: Another Year, Another Disappointment?

You can reach me by email at rtandler@comcast.net

Rich Tandler is the author of Gut Check, The Complete History of Coach Joe Gibbs’ Washington Redskins.

Two star players from Joe Gibbs' first stint as coach of the Redskins, Art Monk and Russ Grimm, made the list of 15 finalists that will be considered for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame next summer. Monk has been eligible for induction for five years and has made it to the round of 15 every year, while Grimm has been eligible for nine years and this is the first time he has made it this far.

Don't expect either to get in.

It's not that they're undeserving; in fact, their credentials are impeccable. In addition to their well-chronicled individual accomplishments, the fact that just one player from the team that had that 10-year run of greatness from 1982-1991 is in the HOF, John Riggins, defies logic. Sure Gibbs himself is in, but he wasn't that good a coach that he could do what he did without some Canton-quality players. Grimm and Monk are two of those.

So why won't they get in when the Board of Selectors meets in Jacksonville the day before the Super Bowl? For one thing, the competition is pretty stiff. From the Washington Post:

Quarterbacks Dan Marino and Steve Young made the list in their first year of eligibility and seem virtually certain to be enshrined in August in Canton, Ohio. They are joined among the finalists by two other players in their initial year of eligibility, wide receiver Michael Irvin and late linebacker Derrick Thomas.

The other finalists are Harry Carson, Richard Dent, L.C. Greenwood, Claude Humphrey, Bob Kuechenberg, Roger Wehrli, George Young and the two previously announced nominees of the seniors' committee, Fritz Pollard and Benny Friedman.

From this list, a minimum of three and a maximum of six can be selected. As the article says, Marino and Steve Young are slam dunks (Marino deserves to be a first-ballot enshrinee, I'm not so sure about Young). I could certainly see the esteemed board selecting the two QB's, one of the senior nominees and/or George Young and then calling it a day. If that's the case, Monk, the only player ever to hold the all-time career receptions record that's not in the HOF (excluding, of course, the still-active Jerry Rice) and Grimm, one of the two best guards of the 1980's, will still have to buy tickets to get into the museum.

This certainly doesn't mean that Grimm and/or Monk getting in is impossible. The decision-making process used by the Hall is what's known as BOGSAT, an acronym for Bunch of Guys Sitting Around a Table. Compromises could be made for the sake of getting the discussion over with. For example, a vote for one Pollard or Friedman could be held hostage in exchange for one for Monk. Grimm could sweep in simply on the basis of a good case made by a writer who feels strongly that he should be inducted and nobody can come up with a good counter argument.

Most Redskins fans are anywhere from annoyed to angry that Monk hasn't gotten in yet. There is one scenario, however, that would send them all ballistic:

Irvin in and Monk out.

There is simply no justification for this based on career stats (Monk, Irvin), character, championships (they both have three SB rings, Monk also has an NFC title), or any other HOF criteria one could come up with.

If Irvin gets in and Monk doesn't, it will clearly be due to a media bias. Irvin always freely talked with the press during his career and has a prominent post in the media now with ESPN gig.

My stab at it as of now is that the first scenario I presented, Marino, S. Young, G. Young, and one between Pollard and Friedman, is pretty likely, say a 40% chance. I'd say that a group that includes Monk has a 25% shot, Grimm has about a one in ten chance. The Redskins fan's nightmare scenario, Irvin and no Monk, has about a 5% shot.

If one or both get in, the enshrinement will be on Sunday, August 7, 2005. See you there, and dust off your Hog noses.

Is He Watching the Same Player I Am?

I rarely rip players here and only occasionally do I take journalists to task. Here goes with both:

In an article on ESPN.com, Len Pasquarelli presents the not-so-shocking news that Rod Gardner is on the trading block.

He has been the subject of trade rumors for the past two seasons and it appears that, for Redskins wide receiver Rod Gardner, the rumblings might finally become a reality this offseason. Several sources have apprised ESPN.com that Gardner definitely will be offered up in trade talks after a 2004 campaign in which his numbers dipped for a second consecutive season.

So far, so good. Gardner’s performance has steadily declined over the past two years from a peak (1006 yards) that wasn't all that high to begin with. He's supposed to be reaching his prime in the third and fourth years of his NFL career, not sliding backwards.

Well, that's my view anyway. According to Lenny:

Gardner is an excellent No. 2 receiver and, while the Washington coaches have no complaints about his work ethic or demeanor, it seems there has been a mutual understanding that it is time for him to move on. The Redskins feel they can get a middle-round choice for Gardner, who should have a pretty decent market, given the number of franchises seeking to upgrade at the position.

Excellent? Reggie Wayne is excellent. Donald Driver is excellent. Issac Bruce is excellent. I could go on through a few more excellents, some very goods, then to the OK's and adequates. Then we'd come to Rod Gardner.

And if the coaches don't have a complaint about his work ethic, fine. But there is something wrong with the consistency of effort given by a player who has a knack for making a spectacular play on one chance and then dropping the next easy one, one who has a great game and instead of that being his breakout game he absolutely disappears for weeks on end.

If the Redskins can get mid-rounder for him, great. Perhaps some team will look at the films and decide that Gardner's struggles aren't all his fault and take a flyer on him for a fifth-round pick. There may be some truth to that given the Redskins quarterback instability and Steve Spurrier's failed offensive schemes. If I was an NFL personnel guy looking to deal for him, however, I'd have to wonder why a guy who can get it done some of the time can't get it done all of the time.

As for Lenny, he would have been OK had he just let it go with the "excellent" evaluation of Gardner. However, as he is prone to do, he had to go on and show his distaste for and bias against the Redskins organization in discussing the hiring of former Jacksonville offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave as quarterbacks coach (at the time of the posting of Pasquarelli's article, the deal had not yet been confirmed; it has since been announced).

The team paid lip service this week to getting more vertical in its passing game next season. But if the Redskins hire deposed Jacksonville offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave as quarterbacks coach, which is anticipated, one has to question the resolve to stretch the field. Musgrave is a West Coast offense proponent and the chief gripe about him from Jaguars players was that he was predictable in his play-calling and rarely challenged secondaries deep.

Excuse me, Len, but what exactly does Musgrave's play calling have to do with his position with the Redskins? About a half dozen guys would have to be in the hospital on game day for Musgrave to ever call a single play for the team. He will prepare the quarterbacks each week exactly as Joe Gibbs instructs him to. Now, Len, you know that but you write tripe like that anyway. Why?

Fassel, Rhodes, or. . .

Three hundred and sixty six days ago to this moment (about 7:30 EST), Jim Fassel was the upside, the best possible case, the cream of the crop. Ray Rhodes was an unattractive second choice as Dennis Green had taken himself out of the running.

As I left the house to attend a work-related social function, I nearly forgot about the Redskins coaching search, which had been going on for a week since Steve Spurrier quit, and had a few beers, sang some karaoke, shot some pool, and talked with my co-workers and their significant others. It was fun and I stayed out too late and dragged home after eleven (that’s late when you’re my age!). I nearly went straight to bed, but I decided to log on to a few message boards to see if there was any news about the coaching search. They were abuzz with a bolt out of the blue.

Gibbs is back.

It wasn’t a done deal, but the tone of Mark Maske’s report in the Post make it sound like it was very close to being one. I saved Maske’s original report on my hard drive, but I can’t find it now, so you’ll have to settle for the AP’s Joseph White’s report of Maske’s report:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hall of Fame coach Joe Gibbs could make a surprise return to the Washington Redskins.

The Washington Post, citing sources with connections to Gibbs, reported late Tuesday on its Web site that Gibbs was in serious discussions about returning to the team that he led to three Super Bowl titles.

The 63-year-old Gibbs coached the Redskins from 1981-92 before resigning to pursue a career with his own NASCAR team. He has been adamant over the years about not wanting to coach again, although he has retained NFL connections. He is currently a minority owner of the Atlanta Falcons.

The Redskins are seeking a replacement for Steve Spurrier, who resigned last week. They were known to have interviewed three candidates: former New York Giants coach Jim Fassel, former Minnesota coach Dennis Green and Seattle defensive coordinator Ray Rhodes.

Calls to the Redskins and to Gibbs' racing team were not immediately returned.

A similar report also appeared on CBS Sportsline.com.

Gibbs' racing teams have been among the most successful in NASCAR with two Winston Cup championships in the last four seasons. Bobby Labonte took the title in 2000 and Tony Stewart in 2002.

Gibbs' oldest son, J.D., is president of Joe Gibbs Racing. The former coach's youngest son, Coy, finished 14th last season in the Busch Series standings.

Maske’s article was intriguing, to say the least. But it was Mike Wilbon’s column The Next Joe Gibbs Could Be Joe Gibbs that appeared on the Post’s website shortly after midnight that convinced me that it was going to happen:

The other day I received an e-mail from someone inquiring about the next head coach of the Washington Redskins. And I immediately dismissed it because the e-mailer was asking whether Dan Snyder had the name Joe Gibbs at the top of his list of candidates, and whether Gibbs would come back, like Vince Lombardi came back, like Dick Vermeil came back, like Bill Parcells has come back a time or two.
I dismissed it because not only has Gibbs said repeatedly over the last 11 years that he wasn't coming back to coach, he has been demonstrably happy in his life outside of football. Most coaches, when they leave football, can never again satisfy their competitive urges. . . .

The Packers have won since Lombardi, the Giants and Patriots have reached Super Bowls since Parcells, the Eagles have threatened to win since Vermeil. But the Redskins have been to one lousy playoff game since Gibbs left. And when Steve Spurrier resigned last week, the desperate cry went out one more time from the sycophants who wondered who out there reminds anybody of Coach Gibbs. D.C. has never gotten over him leaving. The late Shirley Povich might disagree, but it seems to me the pecking order of sports icons around here is Gibbs first, Walter Johnson second.

Well, one would assume that the only thing better than getting a potential Joe Gibbs is getting the real Joe Gibbs.

Now, I’ve never worked in the newspaper business, but I have some idea about how it works. And there is no way that the prime NFL columnist for the Washington Post is going to get up in the middle of the night to bang out a column about Gibbs’ potential return if there wasn’t a real, real good chance that it would happen.

After chasing down information to the point where there was nothing new, it was about 3 AM and I went to bed. As it was revealed later, Joe Gibbs was still hard at work at that hour. As the news of his return was just starting to break, he was on a plane to Buffalo. In the wee hours of the morning he was in the process of hammering out an agreement with Gregg Williams.

In the morning, the cement was beginning to set. The aforementioned CBS Sportsline story came out. When contacted, the Redskins were in the “can’t confirm or deny” mode. The first rock-solid affirmation that Gibbs was back came via the Web from Gibbs own NASCAR team site It was via that medium that Gibbs confirmed the rumors that were barely 12 hours old: Joe Gibbs was again the Head Coach of the Washington Redskins.

There wasn’t a buzz around town, there was an absolute roar. The DC media turned to an all-Gibbs, all the time mode. The press conference was going to be on Thursday evening. I was going to be there.

Next: The Presser

Stability, But With Change

You can reach me by email at rtandler@comcast.net



Rich Tandler is the author of Gut Check, The Complete History of Coach Joe Gibbs’ Washington Redskins.



In an extended session with the press on Monday, Joe Gibbs talked in broad terms about the team's plans for the offseason. The following quotes are from articles by Nunyo Demasio in the Washington Post and by Jody Foldesy in the Washington Times.

After addressing his players yesterday, Gibbs today will begin a week-long analysis of the team. He intends to have a depth chart by Friday that will rank the players at each position, providing a blueprint for the offseason to owner Daniel Snyder and Vice President Vinny Cerrato.

Right off the bat this is not good news. Not the fact that Gibbs and company are breaking down the team's personnel strengths and weaknesses; that's standard operating procedure in the NFL. No, it's the fact that the blueprint will be presented to the tag team of Snyder and Cerrato. It doesn't appear that a real NFL General Manager will be shepherding the team through the ’05 offseason.

Among the issues Gibbs addressed in wide-ranging comments was the status of left tackle Chris Samuels, whose hefty contract has created speculation about his future. Building on complimentary quotes that followed Sunday's 21-18 win over the Minnesota Vikings, Gibbs made clear that Samuels will be around next season.


"Chris Samuels played his rear off," Gibbs said. "We're going to respect that. We think a lot of Chris Samuels. Chris Samuels is going to be a part of this thing. We just need to get [a contract extension] worked out."

It’s good that Gibbs added that final qualifier. If there is no extension worked out, there would be cap charges for Samuels of some $9.6 million next year and of over $11 million in 2006. Those are hard numbers to swallow for any player, much less a solid but not stellar offensive tackle.

Wideout Rod Gardner had his worst season, and the trade rumors that have followed him in his Redskins career may finally become fact.

It’s official—Rod Gardner is a bust. His nickname on the team is “50/50”, based on his chances of catching a given pass. The odds of him remaining a Redskin seem to be considerably longer than that.

A replacement for Garnder could come via the NFL draft. Washington will draft ninth in the first round and receivers such as Michigan’s Braylon Edwards and former USC receiver Mike Williams are likely to be available and attractive at that spot.

(Linebacker Antonio) Pierce remains an important part of Washington's plans, and he said he has a meeting scheduled with coaches this week to discuss his future. The Redskins have been working to retain Pierce for several months, but he recently switched agents and probably won't sign for at least a few more weeks.

It’s possible that Pierce canned his old agent because he wasn’t getting a deal with the Redskins done quickly enough. On the proverbial other hand, it could be that Pierce thought that his former agent wasn’t being forceful enough with the team and wanted the player to sign a deal for far less than his market value. Stay tuned.

Holding a more uncertain future is cornerback Fred Smoot, whose contract talks are at an impasse. Although Gibbs said the club wants to keep Smoot, the coach also made clear there's a maximum price.
"We've got a certain number of bucks to spend," Gibbs said. "My motivation is the core group. ... There may come a situation, hopefully not, where we've got to look out for the core group. If one person ... becomes unreasonable, we've got to protect the core group."

The emphasis was added to that last part of the quote since gives a lot of credence to reports that Smoot is looking for guaranteed money in the neighborhood of $15 million. That’s a lot for a corner who has never been to a Pro Bowl and who never intercepted more than five passes in a season despite playing opposite Champ Bailey for his whole career. For that matter, so is $10 or $11 million that the Redskins reportedly are offering. According to Cerrato, the offer on the table would make Smoot one of the 10 highest-paid corners in the league. Clearly, Smoot is a member of the “core group” that Gibbs would like to protect, but not at any cost. Again, stay tuned.

While in his last meeting with the players Gibbs promised a minimum of change in the coaching staff and in the roster. Still, Gibbs thinks that the team has room to maneuver if it wants to:

Complimenting owner Dan Snyder on his handling of the books and calling the club's cap cushion "substantial," Gibbs added: "We kind of know where we are. Obviously you project where the cap's going to be. And then [there are things] we can do to free up money in there. We've got a great plan."

The offseason retooling will involve more than personnel. Gibbs plans to look at his offensive schemes and fix whatever was broken enough to cause the team to rank 31st in the NFL in scoring with 240 points.

"More than anything, we need to take a long, hard look at everything on offense," Gibbs said. "We're going to take it all apart and see if there's a way to upgrade what we're doing."

Gibbs certainly wouldn’t be afraid to play the copycat game that is so popular in the NFL.

"We're constantly looking to steal, borrow, whatever, what somebody else is doing," he said.

A lot said by Gibbs in the 55-minute session, but not much concrete. The players seem to be as much in the dark about what may happen as the rest of us are. Said Lavar Arrington:

I don't know. I'm part of the Redskins organization. That means anything can happen during the offseason.

Redskins vs. Vikings Bold Predictions

This game is a classic gut check for the Washington Redskins. They have nothing tangible to gain from Sunday’s game against the Vikings. Minnesota, on the other hand, is trying to avoid a road loss that would knock the team out of the playoffs for the second consecutive season.

Teams in the Redskins’ situation react differently. In 1979 the Chicago Bears played the St. Louis Cardinals in the season finale. The Bears needed a win and a Redskin loss later in the day to get a playoff spot while the Cards were, as usual, playing out the string. The Cardinals laid down like dogs, putting up no fight in going down to a 42-6 defeat. Chicago got its playoff spot after Dallas rallied to beat the Redskins.

Last year, though, it was an identical situation with the Arizona Cardinals facing the Vikings this time. This time the Cardinals did not quit; the fought to the end and shattered the hearts of those in Viking land with a stunning 18-17 win on the last play of the game.

So which team will the Redskins more closely resemble on Sunday? Will they show up wanting to make their small but indelible mark on this NFL season by knocking the Vikes out of the postseason? Or will they be more worried about tee times for next week?

The best guess is that the former scenario should prevail. Last week’s loss to Dallas was a setback in trying to build some positive momentum going into the 2005 season and they don’t want to go into the offseason with consecutive losses. On top of that, not everyone’s job is safe and anything less than a full effort will not be looked upon well by Gibbs and company.

But even if the spirit is willing, the collective body may not be cooperative. Clinton Portis has been placed on injured reserve with a sternum injury suffered in the Dallas game. Fred Smoot is doubtful and dime corner Ade Jimoh was also placed on IR.

If Smoot can’t play, the Redskins will be extremely shorthanded in the defensive backfield against a team with one of the best receiving corps in the NFL in Randy Moss, Nate Burleson, and Marcus Robinson. Walt Harris will start in Smoot’s position opposite Shawn Springs and undrafted rookies Garnell Wilds and Rufus Brown will come in for passing situations. With Daunte Culpepper, who might be a league MVP candidate if not for a guy named Manning, throwing the ball it could get ugly.

Against such a potential onslaught, Gibbs and company could design their offensive game plan in a couple of different ways. They could play keep away and try to grind it out with Ledell Betts in Portis’ place in the backfield carrying a heavy load and Patrick Ramsey throwing short passes to Chris Cooley and Laveranues Coles. Or he could open it up, let Ramsey go deep to Rod Gardner, Coles, and Taylor Jacobs.

Playing against the 29th-ranked Minnesota defense either could be a good option. I see a lot of the first with a little of the second. Expect 25 or so carries for Betts and several attempts at long passes by Ramsey.

How many points will that add up to? Not enough. The offensive line will need to have a dominant game for this to work. We’ve been waiting for the offensive line to have such a game all year and it’s not likely to happen in the 17th week of the season.

Vikings 24, Redskins 14

Cheapening the Language

In the title of a blog entry earlier this week, I referred to “devastation” over the result of the Redskins game. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 I pledged to refrain from hyperbole when it comes to describing the events that happen on the football field. Among other things, doing that cheapens the language. If blowing a fourth-quarter lead, for example, is a “catastrophe”, what words are left to describe the results of terrorists driving airliners into the sides of heavily occupied buildings?

Soon after I used the word “devastation” when writing about how some were reacting to the loss to Dallas, news of how truly devastating the tsunami that struck much of southern Asia started to come in. This will serve as another reminder to me to keep sports in its proper perspective. I hope that other writers follow the same guidelines.