So You're Telling Me There's a Chance?

Well its that time of the year for our Nationals Edition of "so you're telling me there's a chance!?" to bring a 'Chip back to DC.  Jason Stark, senior MLB writer for ESPN.com, wrote a blog last night outlining teams that had a shot to win the World Series.  Jason spoke with five General Managers from various teams in the League (2 AL, 3 NL) and there were twelve teams that were unanimous, including our own Washington Nationals:

Two of them said 16 (different teams could make the World Series). One said 15. Another counted 14. The fifth decided it was more like 13. But here's what's interesting: When I finished tallying up all the teams that got mentioned at least once, I was up to 19 teams. That's nearly two-thirds of the sport.

Let's break them down, starting with the 12 that everyone agreed on:

-NL East: Every team but the Mets

-NL Central: Reds and Cardinals

-NL West: Diamondbacks

-AL East: Yankees and Rays

-AL Central: Tigers 

-AL West: Rangers and Angels

HOLY COW.  Now when it comes to projecting our favorite teams chances in the post season, this ain't our first rodeo, but considering the source is MLB GM's we have no reason not to be excited for this years Nationals squad.

More (average/unread) Content Coming!

Great news everyone!  Danny, Jesus, and I are proud to announce that we are merging two of the most dominant blog's in the blogging blogosphere together to blogger you - the reader* - with more of what you want (us blogging)!

Trail of Burgundy Tears is merging with our completely unknown Nationals Treasure 2: Blog of Secrets** to bring you both Redskins and Nationals news and comment.  Its a marriage of epic proportions!  This will really allow us to complain about all DC sports because, well we said so, and frankly, they deserve it.

We have already merged the blogs together so be sure to check out the entries below, the links on the sidebar and all of the archives (Ed Note: the Bill Ladsen Mailbags are just peachy!).  Hopefully you are as excited for the blogs to come as we are (Ed Note: current excitement level is Duckhunt).


*we are sorry we didn't mention this earlier, Mrs Lightfoot.

**naming our blog after a Nick Cage sequel seemed so damn hilarious at the time.  Thinking back on it, maybe Danny gave out too much peyote during that meeting...

Fun with Bill Ladson: Vol 2

I haven't been to the Nationals website lately, but I saw there was another mailbag from Bill Ladson. He's my favorite MLB.com reporter for the Washington Nationals(ok, he's the only MLB.com reprorter for the Nationals). His mailbags are a mind odyssey that will leave you confused, disappointed, and possibly enlightened..... in the most mediocre sense of the word.

"Fans" questions are in bold, Bill's responses are in normal font, and my comments are in red italics. I say "fans" because I'm 90% sure he makes up the questions. Anyway, enjoy:

Since Stephen Strasburg will be under an innings limit in 2012, why not have him start in mid-May of this year so he can pitch into the postseason? 

-- Paul D., Warrenton, Va.

I love your outside the box thinking. On a side note, how many cigarette factories in Warrenton do you work in? 3 reasons why this idea is insane. Number 1) Spring Training is where pitchers stretch out their arm to get ready for the season. They play meaningless games to work their way up to where they need to be for the start of the season. They can work on pitches and mechanics under the supervision of the major league pitching coach and manager. You are saying Strasburg should skip this, and pitch in real AAA games to get ready for the season under the supervision of minor league coaches? That's insane. Number 2) The Nationals are not a lock to make the playoffs. Lets say they don't. If Strasburg has an injury and misses enough starts, the Nationals would have to send him to the Arizona Fall League to throw the rest of his innings. The AFL isn't close to the same as pitching against major leaguers so that does nothing for his development. Number 3) A win in April counts the same as a win in September.

Ok Bill lay into him!

I don't see that happening. He asked "why", Bill

Strasburg is expected to start on time and have an innings limit of 160 innings. It would not surprise me if he is the starter on Opening Day, when the Nationals play the Cubs in Chicago. Strasburg's season will be similar to Jordan Zimmermann's comeback campaign last year. It will come to an end sometime in September.

Everyone knows this. Thanks. You didn't answer Paul D. He's now telling his co-workers at the cigarette factory his idea. He'll look like a fool and never get that promotion. Bill Ladson ruins lives.

How is Chris Marrero progressing in his recovery from surgery?
-- Luke W., Vienna, Va.

Marrero's hamstring injury caused the Nats to acquire Mark DeRosa as the backup first baseman. Marrero is expected to miss the first half of the 2012 season, because he tore his hamstring playing winter ball.

Chris Marrero is not the answer for anything. Everyone thinks he's good because he was a first round pick and Jim Bowden told us he'd be awesome. Look what Jim Bowden said about Chris Marrero five years ago: "Marrero is a converted outfielder with tremendous power potential. During a pre-draft workout at RFK, Marrero consistently drove the ball into the upper deck and reminded some of a young Miguel Cabrera. Chris is batting .309 in the Gulf Coast League. " I just wish Jim Bowden wasn't a liar. He has awful power for a first baseman. Last season he had 14 home runs in 546 plate appearances in AAA and 0 home runs in 117 plate appearances in the majors.

What are the Nationals' intentions for Tyler Moore? We know he can hit and made several great plays at first.
-- Steve P., Kingston, N.Y.

You mean the Tyler Moore with an .314 OBP in AA? Are you sure he can hit? I won't argue the several great plays. I'm sure they were spectacular. 


Moore will be in big league camp, as he is on the 40-man roster. I expect him to see time in the outfield and at first base during the Grapefruit League season. As of now, he is a long shot to be on the 25-man roster, and I expect him to start the season with Triple-A Syracuse. It will be interesting to see how he plays in 2012, because he could be the first baseman of the future. Unlike the previous two years, it would be nice if he gets off to a fast start.

The first baseman of the future is Joey Votto. I'll start that rumor right now. Morse can play first next year and Votto can take over in 2014.

Will Jayson Werth have a bounce-back season?
-- Jake B., Bethesda, Md.

It all depends on if he can hit left handed pitching again. His batting average against left handers was 100 points lower than the year prior..... actually, lets have the professional journalist answer the question.
(Bill grabs his non-informative, positive news only crystal ball.)


Yes, I think he will have a bounce-back season. With Ryan Zimmerman and Adam LaRoche back for a full season, I feel Werth will not put a lot of pressure on himself to perform. I expect him to hit second in 2012 and put up similar numbers to what he put up for the Phillies.

Last season was one of the worst seasons of Jayson Werth's career, why wouldn't he put pressure on himself to perform this season? Did his contract go away? (Checking Google frantically) Unfortunately no. The Nats are still screwed. At least Adam LaRoche is there to ease his mind. "Finally, I can relax. Adam LaRoche is batting 5th."- Something no one has said ever.

What do you think about the Nationals not being able to sign Prince Fielder?
-- Conrad M., Washington

It would have been ludicrous to give Fielder a nine-year deal, which the Tigers gave him last week.Within four years, he could be no more than a designated hitter, and that would not have been good for the Nats.


I feel like that paragraph could be written for Jayson Werth as well.

With that in mind, I believe they are better off sticking with LaRoche, who is expected to be 100 percent healthy. Will he put up numbers like Fielder? No, but I expect him to play great defense and be decent at the plate.

I'm not saying the Nationals should have signed Fielder to a 9 year deal, but there is a scenario where that contract for the Nationals would be something short of "ludicrous". Lets say he played an "ok" first base through the age of 33. The Nats could trade him, while eating some(or most) of his contract, to an AL team for Prince's final three years of the contract. There is a risk that we'd have to keep him around until 36, but the Nationals would be a contender today and for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, winning a World Series would make up for the risk.

Is the Nats' management still pursuing a center fielder? If so, who? Peter Bourjos?
-- Dean O., Winnipeg, Canada

The Nationals are still pursuing a center fielder, but from what I understand, the Angels are not trading Bourjos. I still believe Werth will be the center fielder. I find it hard to believe Washington will platoon Roger Bernadina and Mike Cameron in center. The Nats don't see Bernadina as a center fielder, and Cameron is considered past his prime.

Let's see what happens during the Grapefruit League slate. General manager Mike Rizzo could acquire a center fielder then.

You forgot about Rick Ankiel! They'll be fine. No worries. (Seriously though, get worried)

With Fielder going to the Tigers, is there anything Rizzo can do to improve the offense this year?
-- Kent S., Herndon, Va.

First off all, the Nationals need much better seasons from Werth, Ian Desmond and Danny Espinosa. With Fielder signing with the Tigers, there isn't a difference-maker available on the free-agent market. So Rizzo has to make a trade. But like the Gio Gonzalez trade, Rizzo most likely would have to give up a lot in return.

Wait, you said Werth had less pressure this year. Now you're saying he has to have a "much better" year? Won't that pressure to play better create .......pressure? Or will that be offset by the calming effect of Adam LaRoche's extreme averageness? I don't understand. I'm officially confused. Mailbag over.

Paging Dr Landry

Last time my best friend, Grant Paulsen, and I hung out, he told me about how Laron Landry doesn't want to perform off season surgery on his Achilles.  He also spoke recently to another reporter from Bleacher Report.

I'm here to inform you all that Laron Landry may be a bozo.  Let's take closer look at some of his comments:

“The surgery that was offered last year, I’ve done through the team. After the shockwave, with Dr. (Robert) Anderson in North Carolina, I came to Arizona to do more PRP’s (Platelet-Rich Plasma) because the shockwave helped, but it didn’t cure it and it didn’t heal. That was the surgery offered to me by the team, by the team’s doctors and Dr. Anderson (a well-respected foot and ankle specialist).

OK so it looks like Laron didn't respond well to Dr Anderson's original treatment, so he went off and performed a PRP.  Fair enough, except ... he didn't get healthy.  Landry started the preseason on the PUP list and due to his poor conditioning, injured his hamstring before the season started.  So it looks like both Laron and the doctor may not have made the best decision in the initial diagnosis.

Unfortunately both parties will have another chance, because as we all know Landry ended back up on the IR this year.  So what's his plan this time?

“This year, I went back to the same doctor in Anderson and he instructed the best thing for me was to get open up and fully cut my Achilles and that’s a tough surgery as it takes a year and a half to heal,” he continued.

So Mister Anderson thinks surgery is the best option for someone that has been sidelined 2 years in a row with the same injury... oh... AND he's a renowned specialist.  You should probably take his advice Laron...

“It’s brutal,” Landry said. “It’s like a roller coaster. A major surgery is quite hard. You’re changing the structure of your body and trying to correct it. Recovery time is crucial, rehab is crucial and you sometimes lose range-of-motion and lose strength. The strength will eventually come, but as far as range of motion — you might not get the same thing that you had before. I don’t want that.”

Or don't.

“I’m going to do whatever I need to do to play at a high level no matter what. It’s my body, I’m going to do what I think is right...  

“I don’t want to get into detail about all the procedures,” Landry said. “The ... P.R.P, ... It gives you an opportunity for your body to take its natural course to heal instead of going in and trying to fix it.”

Whaaaaaaaaa?  So you want to ignore the doctors and use the same procedure that didn't work last year?  Great plan Dr Landry.  I'm sure it will work out for you.  In the mean time, I think I speak for a lot of Redskins fans when I say take care, comb your hair.

Waxin' Philosophical on Peyton: Windbag Edition

So we noticed something weird today. Even though the Colts have essentially cut ties with Peyton Manning, and the Redskins are in dire need of a competent QB, no one has been writing anything about the very real possibility of the Skins signing Peyton this offseason.

On Tuesday*, we decided to boldly go where no blogger has gone before and had us a good ol' fashioned word-hagglin' about Peyton to the Skins:


Danny Lightfoot:

I don't understand the downside of having Peyton Manning. If he's healthy, there's no downside. He's a free agent so the Skins can still draft a QB of the future. The other option is Kyle Orton. Someone has to play quarterback. If we pay Peyton $28 million a year, that would be stupid but there is a Peyton scenario that makes sense.


Rich Tanguy:

It's stupid because if we get him we are not drafting up (i.e. no RG3 for the future), the offense will have to adjust for him (again), we are paying a significant amount to a QB (he is not playing here for less than $15 million), when we have other positions that we need to pay players.  I would much rather have Orton as a cheaper stopgap that is not going to completely change our offense and bring someone along then.  Putting 10% of our cap into a QB that maybe will get us to the playoffs is not worth it for a team that is supposed to be rebuilding.

And ALL of that hinges on Peyton being healthy. Manning at 80% could be freaking terrible. He's a year older and slower and he has been known to throw some shaky passes even when 100%.

Danny Lightfoot:

You can still draft up if you really wanted. I wouldn't, but you could.

I'm not sure what the cap situation is, other than we are way under it. We have room to add players. Are you saying $15 million base salary? $15 million with bonuses I feel like can be worked around the cap.

I'm operating under the assumption that Peyton is healthy. When you're talking this kind of money you have to.

I just heard that Kyle Orton will probably get $7-9 million a year. The Redskins aren't winning with Kyle Orton. If you're worried about signing guys, we should just pay a million to Rex and have him lose for us. The reason why Peyton makes sense is that Peyton gives the team the best chance to win, which keeps Mike Shanahan employed. This team has to start winning games. Peyton has a chance to change the entire culture of the team. No other quarterback does that. He will show everyone what it takes to win. The Redskins don't have that on offense. Is Cooley supposed to show these young guys how to work? The reason good teams can plug in guys who can play is because they are in a culture of winning and understand how to win. 

Someone has to play quarterback for this team. Why sign losers as a stop gap, when Peyton Manning can be the stop gap? We can draft like Tannehill second round and have him sit for two years. The team has to win games. That's the reality. We're not trading away draft picks for him like with McNabb. If he's healthy there is no downside. Maybe we win some games with him. If we don't, Shanahan is gone. But at least Shanahan has a chance to win, because if we sign Orton or whatever, we'll lose and he will definitely be gone.

There's more at stake here than just a season of Peyton at QB and some cap considerations.

Jesus Shuttlesworth:

Even Peyton at 90% is still the best QB in Redskins history. The only real problem that arises with bringing Peyton on is the cap hit from his salary, but with Snyder's shady cap guys (like awesome @salarycap101), they always find a way around it. It's not a big enough downside risk given the upside Peyton brings. I guess you can say it means the Skins won't make getting an elite QB in the 2012 draft a priority, but I think that's okay if the stopgap is Peyton because 1) the price for RG3 in future draft picks is higher than the cap implications of Peyton, 2) Taking Tannehill in the 2nd to sit and learn from Peyton could be a great move and 3) assume Peyton and Rex are the QBs and the Skins suck. Then they have a shot at Landry Jones and Barkley next year, after taking a risk on a sure thing hall of famer and not giving up any picks, and in fact hopefully filling some holes with drafted talent around Peyton. That's the worst case scenario. It would suck but that's an acceptable risk in my book.

One more thing on Peyton's salary: this ain't the 2010 rookie wage scale. Cam Newton has a 4 year $22 million deal as the #1 pick. Rookies are cheap now. The Skins need a lot of rookies and up and coming guys and a few key vets. It's okay if some key vets make a ton because rookies cost less by comparison. De Smith must love the Skins.

As far as Peyton's health, make his signing contingent on him passing a physical by a panel of 300 independent doctors and put him through rigorous workouts to prove he is healthy. If he passes those tests to your satisfaction, sign him. It's not like you have to sign him with no information. If that's technically tampering, I say to you sir: when has that ever stopped Snyder before?

I'm not psyched that the Skins are pursuing an aging veteran whose golden years were with another franchise again, but I think the conversation is different when you're talking about someone so talented his retarded kid brother is a two-time Super Bowl MVP.

Danny Lightfoot:

If Peyton is injured and we give him a long term deal that would be a disaster, but there is a way for it to work out. We need a quarterback who can win and Peyton is the best option. I'm not sold on trading future number ones to get RG3. The other QBs seem like they are far from contributing, so it's RG3 or Peyton. RG3 will have to win without help from the draft too depending on what we give up for him.

I guess the only reasons Peyton doesn't fit 1) He doesn't want to play here, 2) He's injured, 3) The Redskins move up for RG3.

If none of those things happen, I'll be disappointed if we can't sign him.

Rich Tanguy:

Peyton's retarded kid brother is on a team with possibly the best defensive line in history of the NFL.

Peyton Manning was born in 1976.  Hes 36 years old this year.  The redskins WR core is Santana Moss, Jabar Gaffney, and Anthony Armstrong.  The offensive line is still being tinkered tailored solidered and spied, the RB could be something pretty good in another year but that's just one aspect of the offense.

I think you are under-estimating what kind of change this is.  Its not baseball.  You cant just add a sick pitcher at the end of his career.  You need to completely change the offense - one that you have been working on for two years now and has been showing signs of life for the first time in 10+ years with REX GROSSMAN at QB.  We need to keep rebuilding.  Using cap tricks is the same reason why we have NO DEPTH for the past 10 years and one of the reasons we have been so shitty.  We sign 10 "good" players that are usually over the hill and end up with 43 Stephon Heyers.  The one time its ever worked for the Redskins was London Fletcher. Yes Manning is special like him but the negatives outweigh the positives.

Showing people what it takes to win and "losing culture" is a crock of shit malarkey too.  These are supposed to be professional athletes, grown ass men. If you have a bunch of Andray Blaches (or Fred Davises?) on your team, you cut their ass or refuse to re-sign them and bring in people that will work hard.  Mike Shanahan knows how to win - hes done it more than Peyton Manning.  Hes been rebuilding for the last two years and we have seen on the field how well its worked - we are a MUCH better team than two years ago just watching us out there.  Yeah we may not have won as many but its the NFL, the difference between winning and losing is tiny.  

Also I don't believe that Shanahan HAS to win now. I think as long as he continues to improve this team, he should get his fair shot. If Snyder fires him after three years and there is an actual improvement in talent and there is direction and a team that is on the right track then Fuck a pox on Dan Snyder for real and I will burn my jerseys once and for all and start over with a new team (hello Panthers and Cam Newton).

 

Danny Lightfoot:

We didn't have depth because we traded away draft picks and drafted poorly. It wasn't because we couldn't afford them.

We have Hankerson also. We can sign/ draft a WR. There are a million WRs out there.

I don't understand how signing Peyton Manning means you have to go out and sign a ton over over the hill guys to bad contracts. If you asked me, our needs on offense would be: QB, WR and RT. On defense, we need help in the secondary and resign LFB. If we signed or drafted competent players in those areas, the team isn't that bad. Plug in a good quarterback like Manning, and they could win some games, and still have time to groom a guy to step in to a good team after a couple years.

If there is no losing culture, can you at least admit there is a winning culture? The Ravens have it. The Patriots. The Steelers. The Colts did before Manning went away. You hear ex-Redskins say all the time how terrible the Redskins culture was. It's not a winning one. Having Peyton at least adds to the locker room. He knows how to win and what it takes to win. He has a presence other players will respect.

John Elway was 37 and 38 when he won the Super Bowls with Shanahan. It's not impossible to win games with an old quarterback.

I think Shanahan needs to win more games. If we sign Orton for this year, we need a guy who can step in the next season and be better than Orton. We can't have two losing seasons with Orton at QB. With Manning at least there is a possibility he can start for two years.

I think Peyton is the best option if healthy. He's temporary. He lets you keep draft picks. He gives the team the best chance to win. 

Jesus Shuttlesworth:

Rich, it seems like your argument is that the Skins have more holes to focus on filling than getting a QB, so what is your plan at QB? Rex for another year? Orton and Rex?  The Skins aren't getting RG3 for anything but multiple picks, so isn't that a worse strategy than Peyton in free agency?

Also, cap tricks can be covered up if you hit on draft picks every once in a while. Vinny didn't AND they had cap tricks, which made him old mother Hubbard with only Vaughn in the cupboard.

I agree this is a much better team than when Shanahan took over, and to me that's an argument for Peyton being a short term fix. Get a proven QB, draft well again, and hope the offensive line and the WRs stay healthy. You think Pierre Garcon and Austin Colley are more talented than Big Bank Hank and Fred Davis? Let Peyton be the bridge to 2014 when Tannehill or Mike Rocco takes over.

Rich Tanguy:

I think there is way more to football than plugging in a sick player.  I think that's where we differ in theory.  Its the ultimate team/coaching game. You need a good EVERYTHING to win in football.  You cant just have one good player or just a good coach.  (You could have just a good GM that puts them all into place, but then by definition you'd have a good everything b/c he put them in place.  what?). Again, its not like baseball when you can scoop up Roy Halladay at 34 to be your ace for 2 more years, nor is it like Madden when you all of the sudden have a 95 ranked player at the QB position.

I'm not going to admit to a winning culture BS either, unless you count it with the GM/Head Coach (and maybe owner).  Those organizations (Ravens, Steelers, Patriots) have had the key guys at the top in place for the last 20,000 years (note: figures are approximate), the Redskins haven't.  We're finally building towards that - why not keep building?  You want good players and hard workers on your team.  We've been drafting idiotic loser athletes for seven years.  The Colts have been good basically b/c of Manning, BUT...

My main hang up is that 1) I have no faith that Manning is healthy (and i don't trust whatever doctor Synder has check manning out either) - this includes his age and the fact that he is no where near the athlete that Elway was, 2) Manning is going to cost too much (he was a $16 mil cap hit this year) for a rebuilding team 3) we do not have Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, Bob Sanders, or Marvin Harrison from three years ago on this team, nor can we get them in free agency.  and 4) we would need to change the system we currently have in place (not that i love the system, but consistency is king in the NFL) if we brought him in.  And what happens when we leave and the QB that we were 'grooming' for two years now has to play like Manning but he has no idea how to call audibles like him?  Or he's a more accurate mid-range thrower and Manning was throwing deep for two years (not accurate but you get my point).  Then we need to retool our system again to fit the QB and we've almost wasted two years b/c there isn't a fit.  Everything in football needs to fit to successfully win consistently.

I definitely do not want to throw away a bunch of picks for RG3, and I honestly do not think we'll do it.  Shanny is still building.  MAYBE that means we can get Manning and he will be healthy and cheap (which would make me feel way better about #2 of my 4 hang ups).  But he definitely has to make some kind of move this year because he cant just assume we'll get someone next year because you never know how it will play out*

* that's the exact same argument Barkley and Jones should have come out - isn't this the second time Jones has not gone in and paid for it?  you'd think he would have learned the first time. If you are going to be a top 10 pick you take that opportunity, you'll never get that money back.  Idiots.  Can't they get an Econ101 teacher to talk some sense into them?!

Danny Lightfoot:

Baseball is a terrible analogy with the plug in stuff. Lets take Prince Fielder. He has a 5 WAR. A team full team of replacement players gets you 49 wins. A team full of losers and Prince is one of the worst teams of all time. You can't just plug in a player in baseball either. 

Bringing in Peyton doesn't stop the building of a team. Changing the system would happen but the running scheme would be in place, but what's the point of running a system with a quarterback who can't run it? 

I'm assuming Peyton is healthy. I'm not sure if he is. If he's not, we shouldn't touch him. 

A good quarterback is huge in the NFL. It's the most important position. Having a healthy Peytom Manning would make everyone better. 

Rich Tanguy:

Who the hell is Peytom Manning?  You are already grasping for guys off the street.  Give up on your argument.

Jesus Shuttlesworth:

I think you're talking about Peytom ManBrady, an unstoppable quarterbacking force who loves the Redskins and wants to sign a 10 year, $73.50 contract to fire rockets for his hometown team

*I was supposed to post this earlier than today, thereby beating the other blogs that are way better than us to the punch, but I, you know, didn't. Sorry fan(s).

Call Him Ed Jackson Because He Couldn't Get the Win

So you may remember last week when the Nats signed Ed Jackson to a one-year $11 million deal. You can debate if he's worth the money or not, but it really depends on what you're expecting. For the Devil Rays, he was frustratingly inconsistent, but since then he's shown flashes of brilliance. Either way, he's going to make Rays fans angry, so there's that.

The bottom line on the acquisition though is that even at his worst, he's still a more-than-solid fourth starter in the NL.

But this begs the larger question. Now the Nats' rotation looks like this:

1. Strasburg
2. Gonzalez
3. Zimmermann
4. Jackson
5. Wang/Lannan/Detwiler

Notice anything? Those are five legit starters for their slots, especially for the NL, and none of them have nicknames.

This is unacceptable. It is a rhyme against humanity that they don't all have awesome nicknames. Why? I'll tell you why.

With awesome nicknames comes hazing. With hazing comes sticking up for each other. With sticking up for each other comes team identity. With team identity comes unlikely rallies and comeback wins. With comeback wins comes playoff spots. With playoff spots comes baseball boners. We love baseball boners.

Like hilarious jokes, the best nicknames always spring from a kernel of truth, so throughout the Spring, we'll be watching the clubhouse shenanigans and looking for opportunities to slap some monikers on the Nats starters. It's up to us people.

A Fan's Super Dilemma: Rootin' Redskin

 

So it's Super Bowl Sunday. What used to be a time when our boys would Fight for Old DC is now a parade of teams that keep their draft picks and don't have a carousel of coaches.

So what's a 'Skins fan to do? The Patriots are insufferable and the Giants are threatening to pull ahead of the Redskins' Super Bowl legacy . As our Brother in Blog asked on Twitter today, who should Redskins fans cheer for in this one?

The answer? No one.

This Super Bowl has nothing to do with the Redskins. The Redskins aren't relevant to the playoffs, and the outcome of this game has zero bearing on the team we root for. Twisting around scenarios to determine how the Redskins' legacy is impacted vis a vis a random matchup of teams is an exercise in futility. Because there is no impact. In fact, in the era of free agency, there's a chance that some of the players you may root for or against in today's game may very well be Redskins next year.

So for today's game, forget about how the Redskins are impacted by these two buttwad teams and their jerk fanbases. Covet the pageantry and dream of a day when you, yes you, could blow 5 large to spend a weekend in a crowded Indianapolis during the winter to cheer on our beloved Burgundy Warriors.

If you must choose a team to cheer for, base it on something personal, like how you walked in on your stepdad and your mom roleplaying "Belichick Cuckolds a Square", or that your ex-fiancee is now dating the guido Giants fan that gave you herpes through the transitive property.

My advice? Skip choosing sides, stuff yourself with crimes against nutrition, bet your kid's college fund on random prop bets, and root for career-ending injuries to the star players on each team.

Hate on, haters.

Taking Out the Trash: Laron Landry Edition

Lets be honest here, as Redskins fans, its very difficult to enjoy football right now.  Our division rivals who we "smashed twice" are in the Super Bowl playing against the worlds most annoyingly fortunate sports city.  Meanwhile the Washington Professional Football team just finished yet another season where they were too good to get a top draft pick and too bad to come close to making the playoffs.

So we here at ToBT would like to take the time to take out some of our frustrations on the awful players that we do not want back next year.  Its time to take out the trash, ToBT style.  First up:  Free Agent Strong Safety Laron Landry.

(Before I get into a big to-do about why I want nothing to do with this guy, this is all based on the fact that Laron is going to want a monster contract similar to a pro-bowl safety.  Ok on with the hate...)

It was only a short 4 seasons ago when Laron Landry made his Redskins debut.  And since that first game he's been living off the reputation of a big hitting safety picked at number six overall.  Countless Redskins fans thought he had finally arrived last year when he was moved to his rightful position of Strong Safety.  But is it possible that 9 game stretch was overblown because Landry had been consistently under performing for the first 3 years of his career?  Lets take a closer look at the numbers...  

Landry averaged 7 tackles a game (which is a great year bringing down the ball carrier - would have ended up with over 115 total tackles) however, he had only 1 INT, 1 FF, and 1 Sack through those 9 games.  Far from the "game changing" defensive player that we expected/believed/dreamed him to be.  Not to mention he missed a total of 16 games in the last 2 seasons.  Here are his per season averages through 64 career games:

• Tackles - 73
• Pass Defenses - 8
• Forced Fumbles - 1
• Sacks - 1
• Interceptions - 1

Now, I understand that a strong safety's first job is not to force turnovers or even get sacks, but for whatever reason Laron has been a fan favorite for 5 years without accomplishing anything incredibly significant on the field.

But lets ignore the numbers for a minute because its hard to put football into numbers to distinguish value.  Here is the main reason I'd like to part ways with Landry - he's crazy.  In a column from last week, my fellow Rich (this one Campbell) noted that Laron is STILL opting against surgery:

Dr. Robert Anderson, a renowned foot and ankle specialist, recommended last month that Landry have surgery. However, Landry is not following that course — at least not yet.

“I haven’t talked to him,” Shanahan said. “I just heard that he’s not going to have surgery. That’s the status right now. Hopefully, that heals up and he’s ready to go.”

#$!&@* the heck?

I don't know about you but if I've had the same injury that's caused me problems over the last 2 seasons and the doctor urged me to get surgery - I would probably have the surgery.  Its like he is too hell bent on becoming the next David Boston to perform on the field.  My buddy over at Burgundy Blog may have mentioned something about this over the past few days....

So because of all of this - average stats, inconsistent on field performance, not wanting surgery (!?) to fix said inconsistent on field performance - I say to you Mike Shanahan - its time to take out the trash!*


*wow that's corny