Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

Did Coles intentionally spike the trade?

Ho hum.

Yet another story that loyal readers of this blog had a heads up about was reported breathlessly in the mainstream sports media on Saturday. From this blog's post last Wednesday:

For the past 48 hours or so the thinking here is that Coles is a goner, a dead Skin walking. That view is evolving more towards the Coles is staying scenario. There is still a chance that he'll be gone before the end of next season but I'd say it's about 60/40 that he stays. Included in that 40% chance of departure is about a 2% chance he will get his outright release with the rest if it being some sort of trade.

And then this "breaking" news story as reported on ESPN.com:

Although Redskins officials were trying on Saturday evening to resuscitate the deal, a proposed trade between Washington and the New York Jets, in which the teams would have swapped their top wide receivers, appears dead.

Now while getting the story right here, it worked out that way for the wrong reasons or at least for reasons that were not forseen here. Reasons that make you scratch your head a bit.

From that ESPN.com story:

The Jets backed away from the deal on Saturday morning when the representatives for Laveranues Coles apprised New York officials over breakfast that their client would likely want to upgrade his contract if traded. The Jets were eager to re-acquire Coles, who began his career in New York, in exchange for wide receiver Santana Moss.

The Jets wanted Coles under the remaining terms of the seven-year, $35 million contract that he signed with Washington in 2002. Told that Coles might not report to training camp if he was traded and did not receive a new contract, the Jets opted to end their pursuit.

So, from reading this, it appears that Coles killed the trade.

The Redskins apparently were willing to eat the $5 million final installment on Coles' signing bonus and the subsequent net cap hit of about $6 million in order to accomodate his apparently desperate wish to get out of town. The Jets were looking forward to getting Coles back and were willing to pay him salaries of about $3 million in 2005 and then $6.8 million in '06, $5.3 million in '07, $6.8 million in '08 and $7.8 million in '09.

But then Coles threw a monkey wrench into the deal, demanding a new contract with New York. The Jets, as one might expect, looked at what they would be agreeing to pay him on an annual basis and considered that to be more than fair compensation. That team shouldn't have to expose itself to any future cap liability should, say, Coles' injured toe become an even bigger issue.

So, we had the Redskins, who did not particularly want to trade Coles had a willing, even eager trading partner in the Jets. Then it was Coles, the discontented one who was so unhappy a week ago that he was willing to give up five million bucks to get out of town, who spiked the deal.

A sudden change of heart (perhaps somebody showed him films of Monk, Clark, and Sanders)? Fear that the injured toe could prompt the Jets to cut him in the next year or two, a move that they could make without any adverse cap consequenses?

The Redskin likely hope it's the former, but there's probably more of the latter at play.

Media Sport: Taking Shots at Snyder

I don't want to leave this topic without addressing the some of the comments critical of the team, and of Dan Snyder in particular, made by some members of the local press. The column that got the most attention was by Sally Jenkins in the Post:

Here we go again, whiplashing around on that out-of-control carousel called the Washington Redskins. The question for owner Dan Snyder and his front office is: What's with all these crazy circular misunderstandings? How come what they seem to promise is never quite, when the spinning stops, what happens? Why do people always walk away rubbing the backs of their necks?

On winning NFL teams, players sometimes take less money to stay. On this team, they're willing to forfeit good money to leave. We have to wonder why. The answer may be that no amount is worth it to play for this team for very long

While Jenkins goes on to bring up a couple of less-compelling cases indicting the organization of bungling and using bait and switch tactics with Lavar Arrington and Steve Spurrier, it's hard to refute that this situation with Coles has given the organization a black eye. Have you ever heard of a player willing to give back guaranteed money in order to buy his freedom? Even though the desire to get out apparently was related more the on-field differences rather than a beef with the organization as a whole, it still looks bad.

It must be pointed out, however, that while all of this was going on there was much more serious bungling going on elsewhere in the NFL. The Tennessee Titans had to cut six players, most of them starters, because they were some $30 million over the salary cap.

Then the Oakland Raiders quickly found themselves in cap hell after agreeing to trade for Randy Moss and signing receiver Jerry Porter to a contract extension. In a move that apparently stunned the team, cornerback Charles Woodson signed the tender offered by the Raiders as their franchise player, a move that locked up over $10 million in cap dollars. Even after quarterback Rich Gannon agreed to a pay cut that saved the team some $7 million against the '05 cap, they were still $10-$15 million over according to the Oakland Tribune.

And yet these teams are not getting ripped, they're not getting snyde comments made in their direction by Len Pasquerelli, they're just, well, trying to win. Meanwhile, the Redskins have rarely been forced to waive a starter or demand a $7 million pay cut for a player in order to get under the cap. But if you asked the average fan who manages their cap better, the Titans or the Redskins, Al Davis or Dan Snyder, I think we all know what the answer would be.

Sorting out the Coles situation

Instead of getting clearer, the situation involving the Redskins and receiver Laveranues Coles continues to grow more confusing. Even an NFL suit couldn't provide any clarity to the murky situation. From a Washington Times article by Jody Foldesy:

NFL vice president of public relations Greg Aiello couldn't say whether Coles would be permitted to waive the final installment of his $13 million signing bonus, an unusual move that would facilitate his departure from Washington.

'I have no answer to that question,' Aiello said in a telephone interview. 'That totally depends on what is being proposed.'

There are two proposals out there. One is for Coles to waive the $5 million bonus installment and get his outright release. This is the one that Coles' camp favors. The other scenario, the one that the Redskins want to execute, is for Coles to forego the five mill and allow the team to trade him.

For Coles to agree to the latter scenario, he's almost have to agree to a new contract with his new team. That's the only way he could recoup the forfieted $5 million. In the open market, of course, he would be able to get that back and then some.

While the situation is murky, one thing is clear: Coles must agree to waive the $5 million bonus payment by the start of free agency on March 2 in order to have the cap relief count towards the 2005 season. March 2 is the drop-dead date for something to happen; that part is set in stone.

Well, sort of. An alternate plan, one that could buy some time, was discussed in Foldesy's article.

The Redskins and Coles, according to sources familiar with the talks, were discussing alternate scenarios to make the trade palatable. One option was to have Coles convert the $5 million into a roster bonus, which would have the same cap effect without a possible roadblock from the NFL Management Council.

The thinking is that the Redskins could make the roster bonus due on, say, March 17, allowing the team more time to work out a trade. This would be an extremely high-risk gamble by the Redskins, however. If they can't move Coles they would be forced to cut him on the eve of the deadline or absorb an $8 million + cap hit for his 2005 services.

It's not clear why Coles would agree to such a scenario either. The big bucks are spent in the opening days of the free agent signing period. If he were to be set free two weeks into it, his choices, and the money that teams have to spend on him, would be limited.

Of course it baffles the mind of most logical folks why anyone would be so unhappy playing for a Hall of Fame coach who is known as a player's coach that the player would be willing to risk over $8 million dollars in salary and bonus in one year in order to get out. It makes even less sense when the coach had many very successful wide receivers play for him and the player has a bad toe on which he refuses to get surgery.

It appears now that Coles will not get his main wish, a complete release. It seems now that the Redskins were prepared to do that over the weekend but changed their minds, perhaps when Gibbs returned from Daytona. If that offer is off the table, Coles will have just two options, accept the trade scenario and hope to be able to redo his contract in the process or remain a Redskin.

Coles' value in a trade is hard to pin down. A lot would depend on whether or not the team that trades for him would have to give him a new contract with a new signing bonus. Should a team have to shell out a SB of, say, $8 million it would be inclined to give the Redskins less in compensation than it would if it got Coles for his current contract which has a 2005 salary of about $3 million and no cap consequenses should they decide to cut Coles at any time.

Bear in mind that it would not be disastrous for the team if Coles were to remain with the Redskins, be he happy or not. He was not happy for most of last year and still caught 90 passes. Ty Law vowed that he would never play for the Patriots again, a pledge that Coles has not taken in regards to the Redskins, when New England refused to redo his contract last year. Not all professional athletes--or people in any job--are happy with their current situations, but they go out and make the best of it. And if the employers are aware of the discontent, they will sometimes take measures to minimize that unhappiness. Surely Gibbs and company would make every effort to do so.

For the past 48 hours or so the thinking here is that Coles is a goner, a dead Skin walking. That view is evolving more towards the Coles is staying scenario. There is still a chance that he'll be gone before the end of next season but I'd say it's about 60/40 that he stays. Included in that 40% chance of departure is about a 2% chance he will get his outright release with the rest if it being some sort of trade.

Demasio--Some Clarifications

After yesterday's firestorm, there were a few loose ends hanging from the story about the Coles story that Nunyo Demasio related to the blog. I got some follow up comments from him to clarify them.

He did make multiple efforts to get the principles in the story to react to it before it hit the
presses. First, from the original article Monday morning:

Coles, who has changed his cell phone number, could not be reached for comment. Barnes didn't return several calls last week to his Roanoke, Ind., office. Snyder, through spokesperson Karl Swanson, referred questions to Gibbs. Reached last night, Cerrato declined to comment.

In fact, Vinny gave him a triple "no comment, no comment, no comment."

Now, I was incorrect in inferring that the story would have gone through even if Gibbs' flat denial had been issued over the phone on Sunday, before the release story was printed. Demasio told me:

If Gibbs denied the release stuff, the story would have just been that Coles is unhappy and unlikely coming back -- instead of being more specific on how he would be jettisoned.

Demasio also told me that he tried to get comments from Breaux and Bugel. He pressed them and they told him to talk to Gibbs.

So, there you have it. Demasio tried to get comments from Snyder,
Cerrato, Bugel, Breaux, Coles, and Coles' agent. For various reasons,
he couldn't.

True, he could have waited until Gibbs got back in town. However, it
was pretty obvious that the paper would have been scooped had he done
this. Again, you can decide if he conducted due dillegence here.

A couple more comments from Demasio:

Perhaps my reporting damaged the team, but i still don't know exactly how, and it wasn't my intention. as you could see by how many people I spoke to, my preference was to work with the team. If coles' leaving was inevitable -- and old news among some guys (players) -- did the skins expect the story to stay quiet until coles was officially gone?

And this about having a stake in the success of the team a writer is covering:

Here's the deal: it's actually EASIER to cover a team that wins. As a beat writer you WANT the team you cover to win, although you're not supposed to root for them. It makes it more fun to go in the locker room.

HOWEVER, when the team you cover is struggling and there are newsworthy stories like Coles, you need to write it. if not, you're doing a disservice to your paper, your readers and yourself. And you need to find another job.

There it is. Again, you decide.

Exclusive: Demasio Talks

Washington Post Redskins beat reporter Nunyo Demasio found himself in the center of a storm today after his story that the Redskins were on the verge of releasing receiver Laveranues Coles was published in the paper and widely reported around the nation. Joe Gibbs issued a flat denial of the story later in the day. In an exclusive interview with The Blog, he told us how the story developed:

“It started late last season. I heard from a player that Coles had asked to be traded during the season. And then, as the season came to an end, Gibbs let it be known that anyone who did not want to be a Redskin next season should come and talk to him and he would do his best to accommodate the request. Coles and (Rod) Gardner were the only ones to take him up on that.”

In the past several weeks, Demasio also called several players, all of whom confirmed that Coles was unhappy with Gibbs’ offense. In fact, some of them even brought up the topic of Coles’ discontent without being asked by the writer.

As it became clear that there was a story here, Demasio spoke to Gibbs last Wednesday as he was on his way out of Redskins Park to go to Daytona to see his NASCAR team compete. At the time, the reporter did not yet have the release story, only one that Coles was unhappy and might not want to come back. It was then that Gibbs said,

“We (Coles and Gibbs) had a couple of good talks. That's the only statement I want to make. Me and Laveranues talked, and we have a good understanding.”

At the time, Demasio did not realize that the story was going to progress. Over the weekend, however, he “called a whole lot of people”, multiple sources from “inside the building (Redskins Park), people who know me and trust me and know that I’m a fair reporter” told Demasio that Coles would be released. In order to make this work, according to one of Demasio’s sources, Coles would pay back some of the $13 million singing bonus the Redskins paid him in 2003. Sources from people with Coles’ camp had essentially the same story, so the Post decided to go with the report.

“If I was just trying to stir up controversy,” Demasio said, “I could have written in the middle of last season that Coles was so unhappy with the offense that he had requested a trade. That was true and it would have been a big story, but I didn’t want to stir things up just for the sake of doing so.”

Demasio said that while he was developing this report over the past few days he tried to call Coles agent “100 times. After not getting a call back I talked to him today after the story came out. He was quite irate that this had gotten out, but he didn’t deny it. After I said that the story was accurate, he said ‘That’s not the point!’ and hung up on me.

At one point in the past few days, Demasio was considering going with a more generic story that Coles was unhappy and that it was unlikely that he would be back with the team next season. It was then that the sources both inside and outside of Redskins Park started to confirm the story of Coles’ pending release and bonus payback agreement. Demasio and his editor decided to go with the story that appeared Monday morning.

Demasio said that it now seems possible that the Redskins would trade Coles rather than release him (as he wrote in a Post article that will appear Tuesday). The scenario would be to get Coles to agree to a restructured contract with a new team and repay some of his signing bonus with the proceeds of the new deal. That gets into some very muddled territory as far as the cap goes. Demasio talked to an NFL general manager today and even he did not know what the cap rules where when it came to situations such as that one.

Such a scenario may render the “semantics of my story” incorrect, said Demasio, but “the bottom line is the Coles will not be a Redskin in 2005. I’m comfortable with what I wrote. I’m a skeptical reporter and I checked this one out as thoroughly as I’ve ever checked anything out.”

In regards to Gibbs’ denial today, Demasio said that Gibbs “is an honorable man” and he had no problem with the coach saying what he did today nor did Gibbs have a problem personally with the reporter for going with the story.

In answer to a final question, Demasio reiterated that his sources for this story included multiple people who work at Redskins Park who knew him and trusted that he would write a fair story. When asked to give some hint as to who they were, the reporter refused, saying that “These are people who would be fired if the team knew that they were talking to me.” He also added that these multiple sources all said the same thing, that Coles would be released.

There it is from the reporter. To steal a line from another news organization, you decide.

Coles Update II: Gibbs Denies WP Story

In remarks broadcast on SportsTalk 980, Joe Gibbs denied a Washington Post report that the release of receiver Laveranues Coles was imminent. According to Gibbs, the story by Nunyo Demasio was not true:

The story referring to LC is inaccurate and not true. . .
Yeah, it says we're going to release him; that's in accurate and it's not true.

When asked if Coles would definitely be on the team next year, Gibbs equivocated only slightly:

My statement is how I feel about it and I'm making plans and we're going forward with what we have and [Coles] is part of those plans.

The door for Coles leaving is left open more than just a crack here. There's plenty of room for the 5-11, 193-lb receiver to slip out of in Gibbs' statement there.

Demasio, in an interview on the radio station, stood by the story. While he said that he may have been off on some details, the bottom line, according to Demasio, is that Coles will not play with the team in 2005. He said his sources were in both Coles' camp and among team officials.

He said the Coles himself was not a source; apparently, Joe Gibbs was not either.

Coles Update: Team Trying to Deal Him

The Redskins may be backing off of their deal to release Laveranues Coles in exchange for his returning part of his signing bonus, according to a wire service story that appeared on ESPN.com.

The Redskins, however, will have to pick their poison. They will either recoup some bonus and some salary cap space or they will get a player and/or picks for Coles and take the net $6 million cap hit.

'They can't have it both ways,' said one source. 'If he's going to repay part of [his signing bonus], it's because he can be a free agent, and choose where he continues his career, not to have them trade him. Honestly, it's a mess right now.

Shopping Coles would seem to be the prudent thing for the team to do. That way, they can weigh the cost of the salary cap hit against what they would receive in the way of compensation. In addition, they could keep Coles from going to a division rival.

It's highly unlikely that a trade will be made, but it makes sense for them to try.

Stunner: Skins Likely to Release Coles

There's nothing like having to have a perfectly good blog entry rendered null and void in less than 24 hours.

Yet that's the case as Saturday night's piece on the Redskins wide receiver situation was shot to hell by this article in the Washington Post:

Washington Redskins wide receiver Laveranues Coles has had at least two extensive conversations with Coach Joe Gibbs since the season ended which are expected to lead to his release from the team, according to sources familiar with the situation.

Apparently, Coles is unhappy with Gibbs' conservative offense that emphasized the running of Clinton Portis and the short passing game. Most of the passes to Coles, a smaller, speedy receiver, were short tosses and screens designed for Coles to gain yards after the catch. He averaged just 10.6 yards a catch in 2004 after having averaged no fewer 14 yards per in any of his previous four seasons.

So, the one given in Saturday's piece, that Coles would man the #1 receiver slot, is now apparently gone if Nunyo Demasio's report is correct. It's back to the drawing board.

Exactly what the Redskins will have to work with in rebuilding their WR corps is unclear. According to the Post article, this will not be your garden-variety release where the team eats the portion of the signing bonus--in Coles' case $13 million--that hasn't been charged to the salary cap. The bottom line on the team waiving Coles would be a net increase of just under $6 million to their 2005 cap. The team can ill afford such a hit.

This transaction will not be a waiver maneuver but something more like a mutual voiding of the contract. Coles will pay back some portion of the $13 million bonus. Exactly how much he might repay is not known, but if he gives back about half of it his departure will be just about a wash on the salary cap books. Of course the 2003 first-round pick that the Redskins gave up as compensation for signing Coles as a restricted free agent is now gone.

There will be efforts to assess blame for this fiasco. The two lightning rods will be Coles and team owner Dan Snyder, who was responsible for the deal to acquire Coles to be the primary weapon in Steve Spurrier's Fun and Gun offense.

Certainly it will be easy to put the blame on the rich, spoiled athlete who is pouting because he isn't getting his own way. And there's a lot of truth in that, but at least Coles is going about this in the right way. He could pout and whine to the media and essentially force the team to relese him. Instead, he's keeping his mouth shut, taking out his checkbook, and buying his freedom. That's the high road. And if he wants out that badly, it's best to let him go.

Snyder is always at the center of the storm and it' hard not to place some of the blame at his feet; he made the deal. However, the nexus of Coles' unhappiness is the best move that Snyder ever made--hiring Gibbs.

Redskins Ponder WR Options

During his one-hour appearance on WJFK radio on Wednesday, Joe Gibbs gave a few hints as to what the team’s strategy will be for the free agent signing period that starts next month and for the April College draft.

The clearest statement he made was:

We would like to solve everything that we could on our football team in free agency

The team would then enter the draft with the idea of being able to “free wheel it” and take the best available player rather than drafting for need.

His other concrete comment was that the team would not be interested in free agent receiver Plaxico Burress and Carolina receiver Mushin Muhammad.

With (Muhammad) and Plaxico, what you're talking about is big bucks.

Clearly, since the team has announced that it is seeking to trade Rod Gardner, receiver would have to be considered a need. With Muhammad and Burress apparently out of the picture, who does that leave? Perhaps David Patten could be persuaded to leave the Patriots and give the Redskins a solid, blue-collar performer who could be had for a blue-collar price.

Beyond that, the other options at the moment are inconsistent and overpriced, like Jerry Porter, or has-beens like Joey Galloway or never-were’s like Tai Streets. There are certain to be a few cap casualties at the position, but the likes of Az-Zahir Hakim and David Terrell make that potential list of choices sound like the proverbial waiver wire from hell.

And the competition for this limited talent will be fierce. Just look in the Skins’ own division; Philly certainly should be looking to upgrade from Alan “Alligator Arms” Pinkston and Freddie “The Mouth” Mitchell, the Giants are happy with their receiver corps and you have to think that Bill Parcells isn’t happy with his group of Quincy Morgan, Keyshawn, and Ms. Terry Glenn.

Should nothing fall into place in free agency, the other option is to be not-so free wheeling in the draft and nab either Michigan’s Braylon Edwards or USC’s Mike Williams with the ninth overall pick. That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad way to go but remember that receivers rarely contribute consistently until their third year.

Speaking of receivers in their third season, it’s possible that the team will give Taylor Jacobs the opportunity to win the starting job. He showed some promise last year after losing most of his rookie season to a freak abdominal injury.

In fact, the Redskins just may need to give Jacobs a shot and either draft a receiver late or go for someone who is a second- or third-tier free agent. After all, since 2001 the Redskins have invested two firsts (drafting Gardner and compensation for Laveranues Coles) and a second (Jacobs) in the position. You can’t go on spending that many high draft picks and, in the case of Coles, large chunks of cap money on one position and expect to be in a position to win.

True, all three of those receivers were brought in by previous coaching staffs. But that shouldn’t matter to Joe Gibbs. You would think that a man who could adjust his offense so that Alvin Garrett could replace the injured Art Monk as a starter in and catch three touchdown passes in one playoff game and another one in the Super Bowl could figure out a way to get the ball in Taylor Jacobs’ hands several dozen times next year.

Gibbs Fires WTEM

From the same Post article quoted above:

The team also announced that Gibbs will answer questions from fans Tuesday from 6 to 7 p.m. on WJFK-FM. Gibbs conducted a weekly show on WTEM-AM during the 2004 season, but was unhappy with recent comments made about him by its hosts and is not expected to continue his relationship with the station. Gibbs said during his most recent news conference that he is considering alternative avenues to interact directly with fans.

So it appears that Gibbs has fired The Team's Steve Czaban and Andy Pollin as hosts of his call-in show. It's unclear exactly what one or both of them said to provoke this action by Gibbs, but the best guess is that it was Czaban speculating, or passing along and discussing speculation, that Gibbs may have come back to the Redskins strictly for the money.

I caught Czaban in the middle of discussing Gibbs on his show on Fox Sports Radio this morning. Right when I tuned him in he was saying something about the coming back for the money thing was something he talked about because it was a topic that was on other peoples' minds. He then went into an analogy about how Gibbs was the dad that nobody ever thought would come back, but he did.

I'm probably in a minority among Redskins fans in that I like Czaban and Pollin. I've been on the Sports Reporters a few times and they've been very generous in giving me air time to promote my books. Last fall I was in the studio with them for an hour and a half and they were extremely cordial and, in the course of conversation, they revealed themselves to be real Redskins fans. Still, I do think that they, particularly Czaban, say some things that are out of line sometimes and speculating that Gibbs was in it for the money certainly was outrageous, whether or not others were talking about it.

Was it OK for Gibbs to jettison his radio show with Czaban and Pollin because he didn't like what they said about him, outside of the context of the show? Keep in mind that it's not certain that the move was made in reaction to the "in it for the money" thing. It may have been that one comment, it may have been an accumulation of things that they said.

No matter what it was, while Gibbs certainly is free to be on whatever radio show he wants, it's a bit disturbing that he bailed on WTEM for the stated reason. The incident could have a chilling effect on interviews and reporters who cover the team. Extreme softball could become the game of the day as far as the media is concerned, out of fear of losing access. Imagine coverage like this:

Interviewer: Coach, great call on that second and four in the third quarter. How did you know that play would gain five?

TV Anchor: And, next in sports, the big Redskins news--Joe Gibbs' grandson gets a puppy for his birthday.

Stay tuned.

Mitchell Retires

Despite an acrimonious departure from the team in 1999, Brian Mitchell will retire as a Washington Redskin. From the DC Post:

The Washington Redskins announced yesterday that former running back Brian Mitchell will officially retire as a member of the team on Wednesday, bringing closure to what was a damaged relationship between the popular player and the franchise. Mitchell, a standout return specialist who spent 10 seasons in Washington, will sign with the Redskins on Wednesday and then announce his retirement at a news conference at Redskins Park

Mitchell was cut from the Redskins following the 1999 season in what was the signature move of the early Dan Snyder years. He was axed to create salary cap room for the signing of Deion Sanders .

At the time, Mitchell had some bad words for Snyder and the Redskins, but he's put it all behind him. He told WTEM radio:

I started here. I played 10 years here. My home is here. I never wanted to leave Washington. I wanted to retire as a Redskin way back. Things changed. I left upset and with an attitude, but you get over things, and I made a phone call to Dan Snyder and expressed what I wanted to do, and he agreed with it.

He has compiled some pretty impressive career stats. From the AP

Mitchell holds NFL records for combined kick return yards (19,013), combined kick returns (1,070), combined kick returns for a touchdown (13), kickoff return yards (14,014), kickoff returns (607), punt return yards (4,999), punt returns (463) and fair catches (231). He was also the leader in all-purpose yards (23,330) until Jerry Rice (23,546) passed him in December.

Compiled numbers are one thing, snapshots in the memory are another. Two of them stand out. One was in 1991, his first game as the full-time punt returner. In the season opener, he returned a punt 69 yards for a touchdown and he made it look easy, getting a forward burst of speed after fielding the kick, making a cut and that was it. Then, in his last game as a Redskin, getting the second-half kickoff down the right sideline for a touchdown that gave his team a 13-0 lead against the Bucs. They would relinquish that lead and lose 14-13.

The big returns, however, are not his enduring legacy. Mitchell achieved his record numbers not by breaking a bunch of long returns, but by getting a 15-yard punt return when the blocking would have netted the average returner nine, by ploughing into the pile on a kickoff return to get an extra four yards of field position for the Redskins. Multiply that by his 1,070 combined kick returns and you have a lot of extra yards.