nice effort...I am not one to appreciate graders as viable journalism...too many subjective dynamics...but all in all you were fair...I know Morris is a fumbler...but he played under Howard Schnellenberger and his highlight film he looks like MJD...he could be a big suprise

I thought you might enjoy this my friend. One FC to another FC.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1089740-manning-vs-manning-is-it-good-for-the-game

Hey, would you be able to send your e mail to klangan@omnipossible.com? I want to get the B/R community leaders on a mailing list for a press release on behalf of Sports Media 101.

Thanks

Hey man I wrote an article about the Top 10 Pro Athletes Who Would Make Good UFC Fighters. Would love to hear what you think man. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/817080-10-pro-athletes-that-would-make-good-ufc-fighters

It's not problem, I always try to support. I'm seventeen, why do you ask?

Shae,

On your QB projections / ratings post (of this year's draft prospects and their 'fit' with Shanny and his system, and the percentage chance you give the Skins might draft them), I am in total agreement with your takes on Mallet, Locker, and Newton. Spot flippin on, my boy.

Unfortunately, you whiffed badly on your Gabbert take. He has excellent mobility and accuracy, and is a fine athlete. He's a little bit green as the team at Mizzou runs an oddball system and he had few weapons that he could go to. But he has it all and would be great in Shanny's system - in time. The problem is he'll be long gone before the 10 spot.

This is not a 'Mike Mamula' love fest spawned by a workout warrior week in the Indy Combine proceedings. It is more of a realization that this kid is on the come and, with Luck staying in school, deserves a much closer look.

The more scouts look, the more they are impressed. Hence the fact Blaine is shooting up the draft board at warp speed.

Oh well, Shae. No one bats 1.000. You'll end up eating crow over your Gabbert gabbing. Take that to the bank.

I said no franchise can match the Redskins in EACH category. Earlier I had said that there were teams with more than the Redskins in playoff wins, Super Bowl appearances, Super Bow victories, etc....

It's not about liking a team. I could care less about which team you like, and if you want to call yourself a sports columnist, it shouldn't matter. I'm not trying to convince you to like anybody or dislike anybody. I just think your lede was awful.

It's about the fact that the Redskins have a storied tradition even with a 20-year hiatus in doing anything worth writing about. As I said the first time, if you said "not-so-rich recent history," you'd be 100 percent correct. But history as a whole is another story.

I'm not saying the Redskins are the best franchise in the NFL. They certainly have their holes. However, when you look at the history of the NFL, they are elite.

You said Pittsburgh, San Francisco, New England and Baltimore are winners that don't keep their fans waiting. Really?

Pittsburgh didn't win a playoff game for 25 years. San Francisco didn't do anything for nearly 35 years and is in another hiatus that is at probably 15 years and counting since it was relevant. New England took 40 years to win a title. Baltimore hasn't been around long enough to go into a drought, but one day it will. The NFL is cyclical and EVERY franchise goes through dry spells at some point. The Ravens may have won a Super Bowl early in their existance, but the Redskins won an NFL title in their first year in town. Besides, let's be honest. Even though the NFL is retarded and starts Baltimore's history when the team relocated there, we both know -- or at least we should know (I can't assume you know this, I guess) that the Ravens moved from Cleveland and their real history is as the loveable losers as the Browns (who were great 60 years ago). The NFL can give that history to the current Browns, but it's not like the Ravens won the Super Bowl a few years after being an expansion team, even though that's the way the NFL wants to make it look.

As for how big, fast and talented these guys are now, you don't have to tell me. I used to cover the NFL. It's also immaterial. I didn't say teams were better prior to 1960. I said it was more difficult to make the playoffs. In other words, you had to win the division and there were only two divisions. I realize there were less teams, but you didn't have 9-7, 8-8, 7-9 teams (or their equivilant of 6-6, 7-5, 5-7) making the postseason. The NFL is watered down now when it comes to making the playoffs when 1/3 of the league qualifies. That didn't happen in the early years. I only brought that up because you gave percentage of playoff apperances,but most of the teams you had listed weren't around before 1960 to be left out year and year.

I'm only arguing facts here, no opinions. In terms of NFL Championship game appearances in the pre-Super Bowl era, the Giants, Bears, Packers, Redskins and Browns were at the top of the list. During the Super Bowl era, despite their nearly 20-year hiatus, the Redskins are atop the list just behind the Steelers, Cowboys, Patriots and Broncos. Only the Packers (who btw will match the Redskins on the aforementioned list of appearances, wins, etc... but I didn't count because as of the time of your column they hadn't played in a fifth Super bowl) and Redskins will be in the Top 5 in BOTH of those categories in two weeks.

There are plenty of teams without a tradition of winning. In fact, there are probably a dozen teams with less than 10 playoff victories. Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, Baltimore (or if you give the old Cleveland wins to the Ravens then you can substitute Cleveland as it currently stands), Seattle, Detroit, Arizona, New Orleans, San Diego, Cincinnati, Atlanta and Kansas City. There are others without a Super Bowl title (not including the franchses listed above): Tennesse, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Minnesota. Right there is half the league. Take it another step further and the teams with just one Super Bowl title? Again, not including teams above, you have St. Louis, Chicago, N.Y. Jets and Tampa. Now, do you see the Redskins on an of those three lists? But you do see them on the lists of multiple-championship franchises both early and modern eras.

As a sports reporter for the last decade I try not to take shots at others, but your first sentance is one of the worst ill-informed I've ever read about a pro team. "not-so-rich history?" Seriously? Throw in recent, and I'll agree with you. But a franchise that has been to five Super Bowls with three wins, along with NFL titles dating back to the team's first year in Washington in 1937 is certainly a rich history. If you want to call yourself a "Redskins featured columnist," then learn about the team you cover. You just reaffirmed to me why I never read this site.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/419130-memo-to-jesse-jackson-stay-out-of-sports-and-shut-up

This is more than basketball, this is about sports in general. I politely ask for your attention here for a few minutes.