Week 7 picks

The main topic of discussion in the NFL this week is pretty obvious: the NFL's decision to ramp up fines and other penalties (like suspensions without pay) to deter defenders from making "illegal" hits on, basically, quarterbacks and receivers. To try to clarify the issue, the NFL sent a video to every team attempting to explain what is and is not considered a legal hit. (The video can be viewed here.) The video clarifies a few things but mainly creates more questions than answers.

After watching the video, only a couple of things are clear (at least to me): 1) if a defensive player aims to hit the head or neck of a defenseless receiver (or quarterback, etc.), that counts as an illegal hit and will likely earn that defender a penalty, fine, and possibly a suspension; 2) helmet-to-helmet contact isn't the only thing that constitutes an illegal hit; and 3) the Brandon Meriweather hit on Todd Heap is the best example of what the NFL is trying to eliminate. The Meriweather hit is particularly singled out in the video as being a blatant illegal hit, and it's also the one hit that I have yet to hear someone describe as unintentional or justified.

The best take I read on the whole legal/illegal hit debate is by Joe Posnanski. The whole article is definitely worth a read, but this part particularly stuck out:

And here is the riddle of football — how can you hurt without injuring, how can you weaken without harming, how can you send a receiver flying backward and have him pop right back up, good as new, Wile E. Coyote gone back to the drawing board? The NFL keeps wanting us to believe that there’s a real answer to this riddle. The league makes the equipment better — or at least that’s what we keep hearing and desperately want to believe. They make the pads more secure, we hear. They make the helmets safer, we are told. . . . The trainers tape every bendable part before every practice and every game, as if the players are windows in the eye of a hurricane — or at least that’s what we choose to believe.

The NFL tinkers with the rules constantly to prevent the most dangerous of hits — the chop block, the clip, the clothesline, the horse collar, the helmet-to-helmet, the trip, the facemask grab, the forearm shiver, the punch, the unloading on a defenseless receiver and whatever devastating tackle they will come with next. The NFL makes the injuries part of the fabric of the sport so that they sound bland … they even release injury reports each week with the tamest-sounding of conditions — probable, questionable, out. Probable means they’re playing no matter how much pain they’re in. Questionable means they might not play, but they also might. Out means out. Put someone else on your fantasy team.

Seriously, read the entire article -- it's fantastic. Is it really possible to hurt without injuring? No, it's not. And the NFL knows that too. But that doesn't mean they're wrong about trying to get rid of hits like the Meriweather one.

My main concern with the NFL's endeavor is that it's impossible for all of these hits to be called the same way. Every hit is unique, and each game has different referees who will interpret the rules differently. Sure, fines and suspensions will come down from the league office for hits that are ruled to be illegal, but what happens if a player is both fined and suspended for a hit that isn't even flagged for a 15-yard penalty? Also, will intent factor into the legal/illegal hit decision, and is that a smart thing to assume? And finally, does the receiver absorbing the crushing tackle/hit have to be hurt for the defender to be heavily penalized? One major similarity in the video is that the players tacking huge hits seemed to be hurt pretty badly -- not a shock, obviously. Sure, they were involved in huge hits and it's not likely that they'd immediately pop back up, but what if they did? If everyone's fine after a significant collision, does that warrant a penalty?

Basically, I'm just as confused as ever, but maybe it will just take a few weeks for the whole issue to be ironed out. Or maybe it'll continue to linger and won't be solved at all -- especially since football is an extremely violent sport. We'll see.

Onto the picks for Week 7:

Steelers (-3) over DOLPHINS

FALCONS (-3.5) over Bengals

CHIEFS (-9.5) over Jaguars

Eagles (+3) over TITANS

Redskins (+3) over BEARS

Browns (+14) over SAINTS

RAVENS (-14) over Bills

49ers (-3) over PANTHERS

Rams (+3) over BUCCANEERS

Cardinals (+7) over SEAHAWKS

Patriots (+3) over CHARGERS

BRONCOS (-7.5) over Raiders

PACKERS (-3) over Vikings

Giants (+3.5) over COWBOYS

Last week: 5-8-1
Season: 38-48-4

Crowley's role with the O's could be changing

According to Jeff Zrebiec of Orioles Insider, Terry Crowley's tenure as hitting coach could be coming to an end. No final decision has been made, but apparently the Orioles "are currently discussing an adviser/instructor type position" for Crowley, enabling him to stay in the organization.

Zrebiec explains more about the potential move:

The deal has not been finalized, according to multiple sources, and the Orioles remain open to Crowley returning for his 13th straight season as Orioles’ hitting coaching and his 17th overall.

However, the club, wanting to take advantage of Crowley’s ability to evaluate hitters, has been mostly talking to the 63-year-old about a different role, one in which he will still work with both major league and minor league hitters during spring training, but also assist in scouting and evaluating potential trade, free agent or draft targets. Either way, Crowley will still factor prominently in the instruction of hitters in the organization.

Zrebiec also notes Crowley's popularity among O's players because of his "work ethic and positive reinforcement." And you know what? That's fine, and I respect that. I'm sure Crowley is a great guy, but one of the main criticisms of Crowley is that many O's hitters develop a free-swinging approach under him, or at least they aren't patient enough and don't draw many walks.

If the move becomes official, it'll be worth taking a closer look at Crowley and how O's hitters have developed (or not) under him. But, for now, let's see what Buck Showalter and the O's front office decides.

McNabb isn't playing that well

The Redskins season -- so far -- has to be considered a moderate success. At 3-3, they've done a pretty good job of weathering the storm of a difficult early season schedule, and they've really only lost one game, to the Rams, that looked bad at the time. But with the Rams playing better, that doesn't even look too awful now, and the Skins have also beaten Dallas (doesn't look that impressive now), Philadelphia (solid win), and Green Bay (also solid). The two three-point losses to the Texans and Colts were tough to stomach, but they were certainly in both games the whole time and barring a couple of missed opportunities, could actually have won those games. The Colts and Texans are also both 4-2, so it's not like they're slouches either.

The next two games, both on the road, are crucial. First, the Redskins head to Chicago in Week 7 to play the Bears, and then they travel to Detroit to face the Lions in Week 8. If the Redskins win both of those games, they'll be 5-3 heading into their bye week, which is right before another difficult part of their schedule. Here's who they face in weeks 10-13: Philadelphia, at Tennessee, Minnesota, and at New York (Giants). The Redskins will likely need to finish at least 2-2 in those games, meaning they need to win these next two games before their bye.

The Redskins have been better than last season, but they obviously still have things to work on. The defense gives up way too many yards, the offense needs to score more points, the offensive line could certainly block a little better, and the defensive backs could do a better job of catching would-be interceptions when they're thrown right to them, etc.

But here's something else the Redskins will need if they're somehow going to finish above .500: better quarterback play from Donovan McNabb. I know what you're thinking: Wait, I feel much more comfortable with McNabb at quarterback compared with Jason Campbell and all the other QBs the Redskins have had over the last several seasons. And yes, for the most part, I feel the same way. McNabb has the intangibles factor and the better ability to lead the Redskins on a game-winning drive, but that doesn't mean he's played all that well so far this season.

Let's take a look at McNabb's stats through six games this season versus Campbell's first six games last season:

McNabb: 78.8 QB rating, 58.1 completion percentage, 1,561 yards, 5 TD, 5 INT, 0 fumbles lost
Campbell: 82.9 QB rating, 65.6 completion percentage, 1,197 yards, 6 TD, 6 INT, 2 fumbles lost

Sure, Campbell turned the ball over three more times, which definitely is something quarterbacks want to avoid, but he also put together better overall numbers while playing with essentially the same weapons in the passing game and a worse offensive line. And yes, I do realize that this example is a small sample size and just a tiny slice of the whole pie to examine. (By the way, McNabb currently ranks 24th in the NFL in QB rating and 26th in completion percentage.)

I am in no way trying to say that I'd rather have Campbell as the quarterback of the Redskins than McNabb. McNabb simply brings things to the table that Campbell never will: better pocket presence, a quicker release, the ability to create plays, and being better at throwing deep passes. Simply put, McNabb's career numbers dwarf Campbell's, and McNabb is unquestionably the better quarterback -- not exactly a stunning statement. Still, the Redskins need McNabb to play much better than he has, meaning that he needs to do a better job of hitting open receivers and completing a higher percentage of his passes. Yes, he's in his first year in this offense, so he gets the benefit of the doubt in that regard. That may also mean that he'll progress in this offense as the season goes along. But even though I like that McNabb throws a great deep ball, there's nothing wrong with checking down a little more and moving the chains instead of going for the home run.

Especially when some of those home-run balls are going in the direction of Joey Galloway.

Week 6 picks

OK, things are starting to get ugly. After a 5-9 week, it's time to turn things around now. Here we go:

Chargers (-9) over RAMS

Too much Philip Rivers.

Chiefs (+5) over TEXANS

I don't know if the Chiefs are for real, but the Texans might not be either. They arguably haven't played a complete or impressive game since their Week 1 win over the Colts.

Ravens (+3) over PATRIOTS

Maybe the best game of the day. I'll take the Ravens; I just think they're the better team.

BUCCANEERS (+5) over Saints

Speaking of teams being for real, there's the Saints (3-2), who, in their three wins, have won by a combined 10 points. Their loss to the Falcons was understandable, but to the Cardinals last week? They may be due for a big week soon, but I don't think it's coming right now.

Falcons (+3) over EAGLES

Tough road game for Atlanta, but I just flat-out think they're better than Philadelphia.

GIANTS (-10) over Lions

The Lions completely dominated a team last week when they destroyed the Rams. Don't expect that trend to continue.

BEARS (-7) over Seahawks

Have the Seahawks played an actual game this year? Why do I feel like I haven't seen any recaps and replays from any of their games? Maybe it's just me. Anyway, I'll take the Bears and that defense.

Dolphins (+3.5) over PACKERS

Aaron Rodgers is going to play despite suffering a concussion last week, but Clay Matthews is listed as doubtful and likely won't be active. Backing a team with an offense with a banged-up quarterback and no running game (and also no Jermichael Finley) to rely on and a defense missing its biggest playmaker? Yeah, the Packers could really use a sound win here, but no thanks.

STEELERS (-14.5) over Browns

Sure, this is Ben Roethlisberger's first game back. But Colt McCoy getting his first NFL start against a stalwart Steelers defense equals big trouble for the Browns.

Jets (-3) over BRONCOS

The Jets are due for a let-down game at some point, but this isn't the game it happens.

Raiders (+7) over 49ERS

I understand the logic here, but backing the 49ers right now in any game just seems silly.

Cowboys (+1.5) over VIKINGS

Ravens-Patriots may be the best game, but this may be the most interesting. The losing team in this contest drops to 1-4 and will be in big, big trouble. I'll take the Cowboys, and I don't really know why.

Colts (-3.5) over REDSKINS

Lots of people seem to be backing the Redskins, and I'm thrilled with that. But the Colts will win this game for two reasons: Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis. Those two will get pressure on Donovan McNabb all game long, something the Packers weren't able to do after Clay Matthews got injured last week.

Titans (-3) over JAGUARS

This seems like a game that could come down to a field goal, but I don't feel confident backing David Garrard in a big game. By the way, did you know he hasn't thrown for over 200 yards in a game yet this season?

Last week: 5-9
Season: 33-40-3

Various takes on the Rangers Game 1 loss

This is mainly a Redskins-Orioles-Wizards blog (with some Terps basketball thrown in). But last night in Game 1 of the ALCS, the Rangers blew a 5-1 lead in the eighth inning against the Yankees, and they eventually lost 6-5 in disastrous fashion. Rangers manager Ron Washington is being criticized for some of his in-game decisions, with the most popular critique being of his eighth inning bullpen management. In that inning, he used four relievers, and two of them threw just one pitch each. And while the ship was sinking, Washington never decided that maybe it would be a good idea to get the team's most effective reliever, closer Neftali Feliz, into the game to stave off the Yankees rally.

My take: Once the Yankees started their eighth inning rally, Feliz should have been summoned immediately. Yes, it's certainly easy to criticize now after the fact, but too often managers prefer to wait to use their closers in the ninth inning instead of in situations late in games when they're needed the most. Sure, Feliz could have blown the game too, but he would have had a much better chance than Darren Oliver, Darren O'Day, and Clay Rapada. And that's not even mentioning his ninth inning decision to have Elvis Andrus bunt.

Let's see what others are saying:

• "Not using ace closer Neftali Feliz in the 8th, when they REALLY needed the game saved? It doesn't take a sabermetric genius to intuitively grasp the value of using your best relief pitcher when your team needs it most late." [Dan Shanoff]
• "You can question the bullpen decisions by manager Ron Washington. You can wonder why third baseman Michael Young was playing on the infield grass with Derek Jeter up and holding a four-run lead. You can wonder why first baseman Jorge Cantu was still on the field with six outs to go with a lead. You can wonder why Hamilton kicked a ground ball single, yielding a key base. You can wonder how Ian Kinsler can possibly get picked off first base for the first out in the bottom of the inning. But this is really where the inning fell apart: Darren Oliver came into a 5-2 game and walked the only two batters he faced. That's where the game fell apart for Texas. There was no recovering from handing the Yankees two base runners without an out. Oliver never gave his team a chance to get out of it." [Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated]
• "There were, for the Rangers, a lot of almosts. They almost delivered what might have been an early critical blow to the Yankees, whose ALCS future might have included three additional probable losses (both Cliff Lee's starts, and A.J. Burnett's start). They almost forced Girardi into making the difficult decision to tap Sabathia again for Game 4, thereby putting his entire staff on short rest (that Girardi pulled Sabathia after only 93 pitches suggests he was already thinking about that)." [Ben Reiter, Sports Illustrated]
• "When the goat horns are handed out (sorry boys, no antlers in this one), they'll go to Oliver and Ian Kinsler (who walked to lead off the bottom of the ninth, and was promptly picked off). There's no accounting for Kinsler's gaffe. But when it comes to pitching changes, the buck should stop with the manager. Oliver performed terribly, and he'll probably take that to his grave someday. But his manager wasn't much better. Ron Washington might be the Manager of the Year. But if we're voting for Manager of Game 1, he's going to finish dead last." [Rob Neyer, SweetSpot]
• "I’m sure Washington was saving his closer for a supposed “save” situation, but there’s no situation that could possibly need saving more than the Rangers’ eighth-inning implosion and after coughing up the lead there was no “save” chance for Feliz in the ninth inning anyway. Blaming the manager for five different pitchers allowing seven straight batters to reach is obviously silly, but Washington pulled some extremely questionable strings and never even saw fit to let Feliz try to put out the fire." [Aaron Gleeman, Hardball Talk]
• "Hindsight is 50-50, but then again, Twitter will give you a live account that a lot of people thought Ron Washington was mis-managing today with each move he made. The only move was to leave Wilson in the game to face Swisher and Teixeira, and had he allowed them to reach base, to bring in Neftali Feliz to face Alex Rodriguez. Baseball teams need to put their best pitchers on the mound in the biggest situations. This isn’t theory that should be debatable. In the course of the five at-bats that happened immediately after C.J. Wilson was pulled – a stretch that included four different Rangers pitchers – the Rangers win expectancy dropped almost 70%. While it’s easy to blame Darren Oliver, or Darren O’Day, or Clay Rapada for the game’s outcome, the Texas Rangers lost a game they needed to win because Ron Washington (and the majority of baseball managers) continues to fail to recognize ideal game theory." [Bryan Smith, FanGraphs]
• You may have seen this by now, but here's what Nolan Ryan looked like during the Rangers collapse. [David Brown, Big League Stew]
• "Going to Oliver made some sense, but as soon as the Old Man walked Swisher and Teixeira, that should have been it. No Darren O'Day. No Clay Rapada. How could Washington pin the Rangers hopes to Clay Rapada? He's not even the lefty Clay reliever with the killer mustache. It's managerial malpractice. It's entirely possible Feliz would have given up the lead as well. But at least the Rangers would have lost with their best relief pitcher on the mound." [David Brown, Big League Stew]
• "The second mistake that Washington made is more egregious and obvious, yet again, almost all managers do and would do the same thing. We ALL know that was. Not bringing in your best reliever in a high leverage situation in the 8th inning, regardless of the number of outs. Now, whether that was with runners on second and first and no outs or bases loaded and the go ahead run at the plate, I don’t know. But surely there was a time in the 8th inning where the leverage was extremely high. Had the Rangers been able to get into the 9th with a 3-run lead, Washington would have joyfully used his closer, Feliz, and that would be the ONE situation where he would not be needed (although it would be OK to use him) as the leverage with a 3-run lead in the 9th is low, as anyone who has read The Book knows (and you can probably guess anyway). Of course he never got to pitch at all and the rest (and the game, and likely the series) is/was history for the Rangers." [The Book Blog]

Quick point: The Yankees obviously deserve a ton of credit for last night's comeback. It really was a fantastic effort to win that game. But with a few moves, the outcome could have been much different. But it's too late now; the Yankees are now up 1-0.

Santana Moss and Chris Cooley catch a lot of passes

Do the Redskins rely too much on Santana Moss and Chris Cooley? Do defenses fear anyone in the Skins passing attack besides those two? Who is going to step up and be that third receiving threat? Those three questions, and many more, are ones that Redskins fans have likely heard multiple times over the course of the season (and even before the season started, to be honest).

There's no denying that Moss and Cooley are a strong receiving tandem. Heading into this week's matchup against the Colts, Moss (29 catches) and Cooley (23 catches) have combined for 52 receptions for 711 yards and three touchdowns. Donovan McNabb looks for them often -- about 47 percent of his targets are to Moss and Cooley. They've also made eight more catches than the rest of the Redskins receiving options combined (52 to 44). And just to hammer the point home, the next highest reception total on the team is nine by Mike Sellers. So yeah, not that anyone's arguing otherwise, but Moss and Cooley are fairly important.

Is this really a problem? Not necessarily. There's no question that McNabb should be looking to get the ball to Moss and Cooley, especially if other receivers aren't getting open. It would be nice if perhaps Armstrong or someone else develops into a third option to help open the offense up more, but who knows if that's really possible right now with this current Redskins roster.

Anyway, let's take a quick look at other current top receiving duos and see what percentage of their team's receptions they're hauling in.

Percentage of receptions caught by top two receivers

1. Atlanta Falcons: Roddy White/Tony Gonzalez (55.9%)
2. Miami Dolphins: Brandon Marshall/Davone Bess (55.8%)
3. New York Giants: Hakeem Nicks/Steve Smith (54.4%)
4. Washington Redskins: Santana Moss/Chris Cooley (54.1%)
5. Indianapolis Colts: Reggie Wayne/Austin Collie (52.0%)
6. New England Patriots: Wes Welker/Aaron Hernandez (51.7%)
7. Cincinnati Bengals: Terrell Owens/Chad Ochocinco (49.5%)
8. St. Louis Rams: Danny Amendola/Mark Clayton** (48.6%)
9. San Francisco 49ers: Frank Gore/Vernon Davis (48.3%)
10. Oakland Raiders: Zach Miller/Louis Murphy (47.9%)
11. Arizona Cardinals: Larry Fitzgerald/Steve Breaston (47.0%)
12. Baltimore Ravens: Anquan Boldin/Todd Heap (46.9%)
13. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Mike Williams/Kellen Winslow (46.7%)
14. New York Jets: Dustin Keller/Braylon Edwards (45.7%)
15. Houston Texans: Andre Johnson/Kevin Walter (45.0%)
16. San Diego Chargers: Antonio Gates/Malcolm Floyd (43.9%)
17. Cleveland Browns: Ben Watson/Peyton Hillis (43.8%)
18. Denver Broncos: Jabar Gaffney/Brandon Lloyd (43.2%)
19. Pittsburgh Steelers: Hines Ward/Heath Miller (43.1%)
20. Kansas City Chiefs: Tony Moeaki/Dwayne Bowe (43.1%)
21. Philadelphia Eagles: LeSean McCoy/DeSean Jackson (42.9%)
22. Dallas Cowboys: Miles Austin/Jason Witten (42.8%)
23. Jacksonville Jaguars: Mike Thomas/Marcedes Lewis (42.0%)
24. Minnesota Vikings: Percy Harvin/Adrian Peterson (41.8%)
25. Green Bay Packers: Donald Driver/Jermichael Finley** (41.4%)
26. Chicago Bears: Matt Forte/Greg Olsen (39.7%)
27. Buffalo Bills: Steve Johnson/Lee Evans (39.5%)
28. Detroit Lions: Brandon Pettigrew/Jahvid Best (39.2%)
29. Tennessee Titans: Nate Washington/Kenny Britt (38.1%)
30. Seattle Seahawks: John Carlson/Deion Branch* (34.6%)
31. New Orleans Saints: Marques Colston/Jeremy Shockey (33.8%)
32. Carolina Panthers: Steve Smith/David Gettis (33.8%)

* Traded to Patriots
** Out for the season

Now, this list may not mean a whole lot. Some teams don't throw a lot to their tight ends; some teams prefer to throw a bunch of dump-off passes to running backs. Some teams in the top 10 or so are similar to the Redskins in that they don't really have many other options in the passing game. But most of the teams at least have pretty good third and fourth options that 1) simply don't get thrown as many passes and 2) are still good enough to force other teams to account for them and allow their team's top receivers to have more space to work with.

And then, there are teams in the 20s like the Cowboys and Packers who spread the ball around and have plenty of receiving options. Must be nice.

In the end, the Redskins will likely need someone to step up to take the pressure off of Moss and Cooley, but that's not really breaking news. I guess I'm just trying to say this: Both of those guys are really good.

Nick Young scores 24 in Wizards' third preseason win

This is the preseason; it doesn't count. With that being said, the Wizards (3-1) have looked impressive while also winning a few games as they prepare for their regular season opener on October 28 against the Magic.

I haven't had the chance to watch many of their games so far, but John Wall again had a decent night, scoring 19 points (on 8-18 shooting) and dishing out seven assists in 35 minutes. But he did get to the free throw line just twice, making both, and also had five turnovers. More important than the win, though, is that Wall is learning valuable lessons before his rookie season begins. According to the AP game story, he learned one last night after picking up two quick fouls:

"The second foul, I should have let it go. I should have let the play go on," Wall said. "I'm more valuable to the team than getting a cheap foul. The preseason is good for learning things that will prepare me for the season, and hopefully, in the season, I won't pick up that cheap foul."

Wall didn't need to be too hard on himself. He sparked Washington in the second quarter, when the Wizards (3-1) took control of the game. He had five of his seven assists in the period as Washington built an 18-point lead.

"You just try to get everybody involved, and whoever has the hot hand, you keep going to them," Wall said. "As a point guard, it's your role to keep everyone happy."

Obviously it's not a huge shock that the Wizards want Wall to stay on the floor and out of foul trouble, but he may also be getting a feel for how NBA officials operate and what he can and can't get away with while he matures into a better defensive player.

Starting in place of Gilbert Arenas -- more on him below -- Nick Young scored 24 points in 31 minutes and seemingly had the hot hand. He made most of his shots, shooting an impressive 10-14 from the field and 4-7 from three-point range. If he shoots that well during the season, he should find plenty of minutes as a scoring threat off the bench. Still, in typical Young fashion, he didn't have a rebound or an assist, though he did have two steals.

Rounding out the rest of the starting five, Kirk Hinrich (as the third guard) had eight points and eight assists, Andray Blatche had nine points, six rebounds, and four assists, and Yi Jianlian, starting at center, had eight points, nine rebounds, and three assists. Oddly enough, Hinrich and Yi had a combined nine field goal attempts, though Yi did get to the three throw line seven times (making four).

With Arenas out and Al Thornton nursing a left ankle sprain, the bulk of the bench minutes went to Cartier Martin (26), JaVale McGee (25), Adam Morrison (17), and Trevor Booker (15). Martin scored 11 points on 5-7 shooting and chipped in three rebounds and two assists. McGee had a strong game too, putting together a double-double (16 points, 11 rebounds) on 6-10 shooting and getting to the free throw line six times (making four). Morrison and Booker added five and four points, respectively.

But back to Arenas: According to Gene Wang of The Washington Post, before the game last night Flip Saunders said that Arenas wasn't going to play because his knee was "acting up" and was "a little sore." Normally that would be the end of the story for most players -- but not for Arenas. After the game, Arenas said that he wanted to give Young the chance to play, hinting that he probably could have played if he had to. Here's what he said:

"I know he's kind of frustrated he's not getting a chance to crack the three position, especially since we're going three guards, so I told him I'd go ahead and fake an injury or say something's wrong with me so you can start," a smiling Arenas said in the locker room.

When asked about the health of his knee, Arenas said, "I'm fine," and indicated he would play on Thursday in the Wizards' final home preseason game against Milwaukee.

Arenas's comments should usually be taken with a grain of salt, especially in this case because he was smiling when he said it. Still, even though it's only the preseason, Arenas took some of the spotlight off of Wall and the rest of the team to admit, or possibly make up, something that didn't really need to be revealed. If this is a sign that the fun-loving and joking Arenas is going to return, I have no problem with that if his play on the court returns to the way it was a few seasons ago too. But with the current condition of his knee, that may not be possible.

Quick update/comment: Kyle Weidie of Truth About It defends Arenas here and makes the case that if Arenas is willing to sacrifice in a preseason game, then that's seemingly a good sign for the upcoming season. He may be right, and I actually hope he's right. I just don't understand why Arenas had to say anything about it if that's what he was really doing. Maybe that's just his nature. But, to me, if he's really willing to sacrifice to make the guys around him better, he would keep these kinds of things in the clubhouse and wouldn't share them, even if he was just joking around (which is likely).

Redskins release Devin Thomas

The Devin Thomas era in Washington has ended. According to Redskins Insider's Rick Maese, the Redskins released Thomas yesterday, making room on the roster for Keiland Williams.

In the end, Thomas was right. For weeks, he admitted in interviews that he was worried that his roster spot was in jeopardy. He survived four games under Mike Shanahan, only contributing as the team's kick returner. In parts of three seasons in Washington after being drafted in the second round in 2008, Thomas caught a grand total of 40 passes for 445 yards and three touchdowns. He also had a rushing TD in 2008.

Obviously there was something about Thomas that the Redskins coaching staff didn't like, or else he would have gotten a chance. Thomas, who's only 23, will likely move on to another team with wide receiver issues, though not many teams have as thin of a wide receiver corps as the Redskins.

It would be nice to have some more answers on why Thomas was released, but two things probably contributed: 1) somehow he got in Shanahan's doghouse and couldn't get out of it, and 2) maybe he just wasn't that good to begin with. After all, he was drafted by Vinny Cerrato.

Jason Reid also shared a story about Thomas during the preseason:

An incident during a meeting in the preseason probably did not help Thomas improve his standing with the Shanahans.

As Thomas slept in the meeting, rookie wideout-punt returner Brandon Banks used his cell phone to take a picture of Thomas. Banks then transmitted the picture via Twitter. After team officials informed Shanahan of what occurred, Banks quickly deleted the picture from his Twitter account.

If Thomas was talented enough, him falling asleep in one meeting probably wouldn't have been a big deal. But that unprofessionalism, combined with his apparent talent deficiency, was enough for Shanahan to show him the door after just four games.

Here are some other links/reactions on Thomas's departure:

• "Redskins release Devin Thomas after four games; Keiland Williams promoted" [Mike Jones, @TBDSkins]
• "Thomas cut, Williams promoted" [John Keim, Redskins Confidential]
• "D.C. Is Where Wide Receivers Go to Die" [Jamie Mottram, Mr. Irrelevant]
• "Devin Thomas era in D.C. is over" [Matt Mosley, NFC East Blog]
• "Devin Thomas Cut by Redskins" [J.J. Cooper, FanHouse]