Akh/Becky 1st 2007 Mock

[akhhorus]

http://www.hailredskins.com/blog/index.php?p=355

Guff away.

[danny's stogie]

Do the two of you have matching christmas sweaters too?

Oh sweet, I found the future.

http://www.aptowicz.com/momanddadtracksuits.jpg

[shally]

http://www.hailredskins.com/blog/index.php?p=355

Guff away.

i am beyond confused... so who do we end up with when the dust settles ?

[CNYSkinFan]

They are sharing draft predictions now?

OMG. Can the mods just merge their accounts into one big love fest ? :)

[akhhorus]

i am beyond confused... so who do we end up with when the dust settles ?

Revis, Jackson, beekman, Nick Barnett.

[danny's stogie]

They are sharing draft predictions now?

OMG. Can the mods just merge their accounts into one big love fest ? :)

His and her avatars?

[CNYSkinFan]

BTW...no more trades with Denver. this last one took two NASA scientists to figure out. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

[CNYSkinFan]

His and her avatars?
They can share this as their avatar

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/RuPaul.jpg

[becky]

Do the two of you have matching christmas sweaters too?

Oh sweet, I found the future.

http://www.aptowicz.com/momanddadtracksuits.jpg


Yeah, but I want mine to read "GILF" :rolleyes:

[danny's stogie]

They can share this as their avatar



Gross.

Anyways, I like the draft. It almost looks too logical though. Half the teams in the league try to outthink themselves and end up with odd draft choices.

[smoot]

Revis, Jackson, beekman, Nick Barnett.
only problem is that beekman's stock has skyrocketed this season. he's expected to be early second, maybe the first guard off the board

[danny's stogie]

Yeah, but I want mine to read "GILF" :rolleyes:

You dissaprove of "cuddles"?

[akhhorus]

only problem is that beekman's stock has skyrocketed this season. he's expected to be early second, maybe the first guard off the board

No way he is. Blalock will be first barring injury. His stock might shoot up, but there's a lot of good guards. I'm expecting that he will drop.

[smoot]

No way he is. Blalock will be first barring injury. His stock might shoot up, but there's a lot of good guards. I'm expecting that he will drop.
guards to have a history of dropping (see MJG) so its conceivable that he will be around, and i agree that blalock is better. however, many disagree

[becky]

You dissaprove of "cuddles"?


lol yeah, its not nearly offensive enough. Although the tracksuits accomplish that almost entirely on their own.

[danny's stogie]

lol yeah, its not nearly offensive enough. Although the tracksuits accomplish that almost entirely on their own.

I'm guessing that gilf means the same thing as that term from a movie starring a character named Stiffler, but with the first letter standing for "girlfriend"?

[becky]

I'm guessing that gilf means the same thing as that term from a movie starring a character named Stiffler, but with the first letter standing for "girlfriend"?


Close, I meant grandma.. no way a track suit comes near this body for the next 40 years.

[esmith1790]

so who sits in place of Nick Barnett? Also i believe he is still under his rookie contract so either he walks again via FA or gets a big payday to stay. Not sure this is a good trade.

Like the boys getting another 3rd rounder.

[akhhorus]

so who sits in place of Nick Barnett? Also i believe he is still under his rookie contract so either he walks again via FA or gets a big payday to stay. Not sure this is a good trade.

I would play him at MLB(Marshall can play the other 2 LB spots also). And he'll get his payday, why the Pack are refusing to discuss an extention with him is beyond me. The skins will give it to him and he's worth it. Its a good trade because it puts a playmaker at MLB for this team without having to expend a draft pick on it.

[esmith1790]

I would play him at MLB(Marshall can play the other 2 LB spots also). And he'll get his payday, why the Pack are refusing to discuss an extention with him is beyond me. The skins will give it to him and he's worth it. Its a good trade because it puts a playmaker at MLB for this team without having to expend a draft pick on it.


so washington, barnett, mcintosh and marshall on the bench?

[akhhorus]

so washington, barnett, mcintosh and marshall on the bench?

More than likely. Marshall makes next to nothing btw and if Washington is gone/benched, then Barnett, Marshall & McIntosh or Marshall, Barnett and McIntosh

[esmith1790]

More than likely. Marshall makes next to nothing btw and if Washington is gone/benched, then Barnett, Marshall & McIntosh or Marshall, Barnett and McIntosh

why would GB get rid of a great player? just to move up? I think as bad as they are they would stock pile picks.

[akhhorus]

why would GB get rid of a great player? just to move up? I think as bad as they are they would stock pile picks.

Like I stated before, he's looking for a new deal(he gets paid nothing) and Green Bay is refusing to even discuss an extention for him. I don't know why, but dealing him to move up to get a CB who won't be there when they pick in our projection is a solid move.

[Meatsnack]

Akh, 3 questions arise from what passes for my mind:

1) Would Arizona really draft Branch over Joe Thomas given their O-line problems and all the money in Leinart? Wait, nevermind, they're the Cards.

2) I haven't paid much attention to Oakland because, well, why would anyone? Does the Quinn move mean that Andrew Walter isn't the answer? I could see Branch going here to end the Sapp experiment.

3) Does the Beekman pick mean that Dockery walks?

[BigCountry]

When did Terry Bradway and Vinny Cerratto start co-running the Pakcers? Seriously now id love to see that happen but i think that trade is too one sided.

[akhhorus]

Akh, 3 questions arise from what passes for my mind:

1) Would Arizona really draft Branch over Joe Thomas given their O-line problems and all the money in Leinart? Wait, nevermind, they're the Cards.

2) I haven't paid much attention to Oakland because, well, why would anyone? Does the Quinn move mean that Andrew Walter isn't the answer? I could see Branch going here to end the Sapp experiment.

3) Does the Beekman pick mean that Dockery walks?

1-Yep. I think they're going to throw money at FA Olinemen like Dock and Thomas from the Eagles.

2-Yes and I could see that too, but that would be too competant a move for Oakland. Meanwhile, Brady Quinn is looking for masking agents to show that hee has drugs in his system when Oakland tests him.

3-I think so. Dock has been his usual inconsistant self and I don't think he's worth now anything more than a 3 year-8 million dollar deal.

When did Terry Bradway and Vinny Cerratto start co-running the Pakcers? Seriously now id love to see that happen but i think that trade is too one sided.

I've explained this trade already. Barnett is a good talent and is having another solid season. But four factors make this plausible:
1-Barnett is asking for an extension soon and GB seems unwilling to pony up the cash. Barnett makes basically nothing right now and isn't asking for Ray Lewis type cash.
2-They apparently love Abdul Hodge.
3-The emergence of AJ Hawk.
4-Despite teaming Charles Woodson and Al Harris, they still get little at Cb and in their pass defense. McCauley and Harris with Woodson at FS would be a decent group. Their need for an upgrade at CB is bigger than the potential drop off between Barnett and Hodge.

[Skaggsrules]

What makes you think we will pull a smart trade involving draft picks......or that we won't send a future pick

[akhhorus]

What makes you think we will pull a smart trade involving draft picks......or that we won't send a future pick

Thats a possibility. But just because the Duckett deal was stupid so far doesn't mean we're a terrible trading team. Portis, Moss, Cooley and Campbell were all acquired from trades.

[BigCountry]

1-Yep. I think they're going to throw money at FA Olinemen like Dock and Thomas from the Eagles.

2-Yes and I could see that too, but that would be too competant a move for Oakland. Meanwhile, Brady Quinn is looking for masking agents to show that hee has drugs in his system when Oakland tests him.

3-I think so. Dock has been his usual inconsistant self and I don't think he's worth now anything more than a 3 year-8 million dollar deal.



I've explained this trade already. Barnett is a good talent and is having another solid season. But four factors make this plausible:
1-Barnett is asking for an extension soon and GB seems unwilling to pony up the cash. Barnett makes basically nothing right now and isn't asking for Ray Lewis type cash.
2-They apparently love Abdul Hodge.
3-The emergence of AJ Hawk.
4-Despite teaming Charles Woodson and Al Harris, they still get little at Cb and in their pass defense. McCauley and Harris with Woodson at FS would be a decent group. Their need for an upgrade at CB is bigger than the potential drop off between Barnett and Hodge.

I think you were with me in harping about Hodge since his junior season. I think we deserve part of Vinny's paycheck...someone gotta earn it and he sure as hell isnt.

[redskin_rich]

Thats a possibility. But just because the Duckett deal was stupid so far doesn't mean we're a terrible trading team. Portis, Moss, Cooley and Campbell were all acquired from trades.
Thrash for a 5th wasn't bad and in time Lloyd should easily prove to be worth a 3rd and future 4th. Brunell also proved to be worth a 3rd.

[Skaggsrules]

Thats a possibility. But just because the Duckett deal was stupid so far doesn't mean we're a terrible trading team. Portis, Moss, Cooley and Campbell were all acquired from trades.

I meant trades where we give up too many draft picks

[akhhorus]

I meant trades where we give up too many draft picks

What is too many? If you give up one for nothing that too many. The question is what you get in return.

[ph33rtheD]

I personally do not think Alan Branch is worth the top pick in the draft. Top 15 yes... 1st no. He has a tremendous front 7 around him so offenese cannot key on him. On top of that he has a great secondary behind him making it seem like he can rush the passer a bit. His has great size but his speed and explosiveness (for his size) are average. I dont understand all the hype surrounding him i really dont. Mario Williams last year , if u look at his workout numbers he looked like a freak of nature. Branch is just big

[akhhorus]

I personally do not think Alan Branch is worth the top pick in the draft. Top 15 yes... 1st no. He has a tremendous front 7 around him so offenese cannot key on him. On top of that he has a great secondary behind him making it seem like he can rush the passer a bit. His has great size but his speed and explosiveness (for his size) are average. I dont understand all the hype surrounding him i really dont. Mario Williams last year , if u look at his workout numbers he looked like a freak of nature. Branch is just big

Well, I suppose you could say similar things about Williams. He had two other first rounders on the line with him(and another highly rated prospect this year who might be a late first rounder) and a pretty good defense around him in total. Which is more than you can say about what Branch has around him. Hall and Woodley are sure firsts this year, but other than that, the best of the rest looks to be 2-3rd round talent.

I think Branch is more of physical freak than Williams is. Branch is 6-6 330 and runs a 5.00-5.1. Thats insane for a DT. And he's not just a measurables freak, he is always in the offensive backfield. I think right now he's percieved to be in the 5-10 range, but I believe he'll be in the Top 3 at the end of the day. Too dominating physically and plays hard on the field, no matter the talent around him.

[FanFromArizona]

I am waiting for the female influence to defend the draft picks.....:rolleyes:

Reading between the lines it sounds like you are predicting a Skins victory over the Bucs. (they have a higher draft pick in your draft and a loss this weekend would give both teams the same record with them having the head-to-head lead over us.)

[FanFromArizona]

Arizona going DEFENSE with the top pick? NOPE.

They need an offensive line overhaul and even free agency won't address all their problems. Even with the top pick, combined with their propensity to be cheap, a ROOKIE contract to a top 2 pick will not be in the same territory as a veteran lineman contract for Dock or Thomas. And with the Cardinals propensity for cheapness [notwithstanding the signing of E James] I would think they will go with the OT from Wisconsin.


And pray tell me what city and state "Cleitus the Slack Jawed College" is in?

[Skaggsrules]

Thats a possibility. But just because the Duckett deal was stupid so far doesn't mean we're a terrible trading team. Portis, Moss, Cooley and Campbell were all acquired from trades.

Cooley was acquired by trading away a 2nd round pick, because we didn't have a 3rd due to the acquistion of Mark Brunell, which many, including myself, were skeptical for.....the 2nd shouldn't have been lost

Moss was acquired where we could've gained a pick from the Jets because at that point, Moss was a bust for the Jets, with injury problems, and Coles had been to a Pro Bowl with us.

Portis was acquired with us giving away a 2nd rounder with Champ Bailey, which never should've occured...Denver should've given us a pick.

Campbell hasn't had a chance to show that the trade was worth the cost

We traded 3 picks to trade up 18 spots in the second round to get a guy who might've been availible where we were picking, and lost this year's second round pick.

Getting the right value out of draft picks on draft is a flaw of this team, while your trades are plausible, recent treatment of picks beg to differ from your opinion

[akhhorus]

Cooley was acquired by trading away a 2nd round pick, because we didn't have a 3rd due to the acquistion of Mark Brunell, which many, including myself, were skeptical for.....the 2nd shouldn't have been lost

I would rather have had Cooley than that 2nd in retrospect.

Moss was acquired where we could've gained a pick from the Jets because at that point, Moss was a bust for the Jets, with injury problems, and Coles had been to a Pro Bowl with us.

And Moss had 1800 yards in his last two seasons with the Jets. Bust? Coles did go to a Pro Bowl, but he had a massive deal and a degeneritive injury.

Portis was acquired with us giving away a 2nd rounder with Champ Bailey, which never should've occured...Denver should've given us a pick.

Believe what you want I suppose. Champ wasn't going to stay, so the deal was Portis for a 2nd. Portis has done more in 2.5 seasons than Champ did in his 5 seasons as a Redskin. Oh yeah, and he's much cheaper.

Campbell hasn't had a chance to show that the trade was worth the cost

And I think he's getting that chance soon...until he's a bust, you can't judge the trade.

We traded 3 picks to trade up 18 spots in the second round to get a guy who might've been availible where we were picking, and lost this year's second round pick.

No way he would have been there. See Campbell also.

Getting the right value out of draft picks on draft is a flaw of this team, while your trades are plausible, recent treatment of picks beg to differ from your opinion

If anything they show us willing to wheel and deal(and btw, the skins have tried badly to deal down from their picks, especially that #9 in 2005). The skins have traded up 3 times under Gibbs and I believe traded down 4-5 times.

[redskin_rich]

When we drafted Cooley in the 3rd rd of '04, we gave our '05 2nd rd pick. Who did we trade with?

[smoot]

When we drafted Cooley in the 3rd rd of '04, we gave our '05 2nd rd pick. Who did we trade with?
the saints

[Skaggsrules]

I would rather have had Cooley than that 2nd in retrospect.

And I would rather have the third round pick we should've had if we didn't overpay for Brunell to draft Cooley......then use the 2nd rounder the next year for a Lofa Tatupu or a Channing Crowder.

And Moss had 1800 yards in his last two seasons with the Jets. Bust? Coles did go to a Pro Bowl, but he had a massive deal and a degeneritive injury.

He was oft-injured his career in New York, and didn't produce as much as they expect out of a first round pick, 1100 yards came in 2003, and most of it was in half a season, he wasn't the receiver he is now.....Coles still possessed a little more value, the Jets didn't like Moss as well. We also leaked we would release him too, which cost us.


Believe what you want I suppose. Champ wasn't going to stay, so the deal was Portis for a 2nd. Portis has done more in 2.5 seasons than Champ did in his 5 seasons as a Redskin. Oh yeah, and he's much cheaper.

It's hard to guage production between a RB and CB and who did more, as both contributed vastly while with the Redskins....Better negotiating and willingness to keep the 2nd, or at least get a pick from the Broncos, like their 2nd, 13 spots lower than ours.

And I think he's getting that chance soon...until he's a bust, you can't judge the trade.

I meant to type my statement in a way to state that I can't judge it yet, my mistake.

No way he would have been there. See Campbell also.

One 'backer was taken between Rocky and #53, thomas howard who oakland would've drafted over Rocky, there's a decent chance he would've made it to us. We'll never know though. True, can't judge Rocky, but I'm just trying to make a point that you can better manage the trading of picks

If anything they show us willing to wheel and deal(and btw, the skins have tried badly to deal down from their picks, especially that #9 in 2005). The skins have traded up 3 times under Gibbs and I believe traded down 4-5 times.

None of the trading downs involved the first or second round, and the trades you proposed involved complex scenarios that I don't think Cousin Vinny and Uncle Danny can correctly piece together.

[redskin_rich]

He was oft-injured his career in New York, and didn't produce as much as they expect out of a first round pick, 1100 yards came in 2003, and most of it was in half a season, he wasn't the receiver he is now.....Coles still possessed a little more value, the Jets didn't like Moss as well. We also leaked we would release him too, which cost us.

Ok, I don't agree with most of your other points but they are arguable and hard to prove one way or the other.
But, if you are going to insinuate that we didn't make out in the Moss/Coles trade, I have to not only question how much you watch the Redskins but also how much you watch pro football in general.

[akhhorus]

And I would rather have the third round pick we should've had if we didn't overpay for Brunell to draft Cooley......then use the 2nd rounder the next year for a Lofa Tatupu or a Channing Crowder.

You cannot possibly know or assume who we would have taken or not. Pining for a player now is ridiculous.

He was oft-injured his career in New York, and didn't produce as much as they expect out of a first round pick, 1100 yards came in 2003, and most of it was in half a season, he wasn't the receiver he is now.....Coles still possessed a little more value, the Jets didn't like Moss as well. We also leaked we would release him too, which cost us.

Like I said: Coles had a massive deal and a degenerative injury. Coles had about 2100-2300 yards in 2003 and 2004: thats not much more than Moss had. Yes, Moss had a hamstring injury, but there were serious questions about Coles' toe. We made out big time on that deal. But you obviously just want to whine about something involving draft picks.

It's hard to guage production between a RB and CB and who did more, as both contributed vastly while with the Redskins....Better negotiating and willingness to keep the 2nd, or at least get a pick from the Broncos, like their 2nd, 13 spots lower than ours.

Let me see, about 3000 yards in two full seasons, setting new rushing record for the franchise versus good, but inconsistant CB play. Hmmm. I think you're just looking for things to whine about now.

I meant to type my statement in a way to state that I can't judge it yet, my mistake.

If you truly did, you never would have brought it up.

One 'backer was taken between Rocky and #53, thomas howard who oakland would've drafted over Rocky, there's a decent chance he would've made it to us. We'll never know though. True, can't judge Rocky, but I'm just trying to make a point that you can better manage the trading of picks

Like I said: you're just looking for things to whine about now. Thats a complete counterfactual. And if Rocky turns out to be a good player, it was worth the trade.

None of the trading downs involved the first or second round, and the trades you proposed involved complex scenarios that I don't think Cousin Vinny and Uncle Danny can correctly piece together.

Why? They seemed to make similar trades in 2002. Oh, wait, those "facts". In the words of the great philosopher Brian Fantana: Why don't you sit a few rounds out here champ...maybe stop talking. You just want to make yourself upset about something and you're really stretching here.

[CNYSkinFan]

Ok, I don't agree with most of your other points but they are arguable and hard to prove one way or the other.
But, if you are going to insinuate that we didn't make out in the Moss/Coles trade, I have to not only question how much you watch the Redskins but also how much you watch pro football in general.
What Skaggs is saying is what the general feeling of NFL scouts on Moss and Coles at the time of the trade. He is right but he is forgetting one important detail that prevented us from getting anything more then what we got in our trade. And that is the position the redskins were in. the Jets had leverage in that they had Moss and were content to keep him while we were motivated to get rid of Coles. Denver had that same leverage in the Portis Bailey trade (sure portis was asking for a new contract but Denver also had 3 or 4 RBs on the roster that could withstand a holdout).

The onyl trade I think we got hosed on so far is the Duckett trade. That was a complete panic button trade that will hurt us next year.

[Carmelo]

Do the two of you have matching christmas sweaters too?

Oh sweet, I found the future.

http://www.aptowicz.com/momanddadtracksuits.jpg
:lol3: I have not read past that so far because I have not been able to stop laughing yet.

[akhhorus]

What Skaggs is saying is what the general feeling of NFL scouts on Moss and Coles at the time of the trade. He is right but he is forgetting one important detail that prevented us from getting anything more then what we got in our trade. And that is the position the redskins were in. the Jets had leverage in that they had Moss and were content to keep him while we were motivated to get rid of Coles. Denver had that same leverage in the Portis Bailey trade (sure portis was asking for a new contract but Denver also had 3 or 4 RBs on the roster that could withstand a holdout).

We also got cap benefits also. Dumping Coles' massive contract for Moss' lighter one while improving production from the WR position. That was a major win for us. You're right somewhat on the Portis deal, but he's providing the best production any Skins RB has ever in 2 years.

The onyl trade I think we got hosed on so far is the Duckett trade. That was a complete panic button trade that will hurt us next year.

Thats still with the jury. It could be a total mess up, but if Duckett stays and is productive, then it was at least a decent deal for us.

[Skins7ny]

Cooley was acquired by trading away a 2nd round pick, because we didn't have a 3rd due to the acquistion of Mark Brunell, which many, including myself, were skeptical for.....the 2nd shouldn't have been lost

Moss was acquired where we could've gained a pick from the Jets because at that point, Moss was a bust for the Jets, with injury problems, and Coles had been to a Pro Bowl with us.

Portis was acquired with us giving away a 2nd rounder with Champ Bailey, which never should've occured...Denver should've given us a pick.

Campbell hasn't had a chance to show that the trade was worth the cost

We traded 3 picks to trade up 18 spots in the second round to get a guy who might've been availible where we were picking, and lost this year's second round pick.

Getting the right value out of draft picks on draft is a flaw of this team, while your trades are plausible, recent treatment of picks beg to differ from your opinion


I couldn't agree with you more.

Like I said: Coles had a massive deal and a degenerative injury. Coles had about 2100-2300 yards in 2003 and 2004: thats not much more than Moss had. Yes, Moss had a hamstring injury, but there were serious questions about Coles' toe. We made out big time on that deal. But you obviously just want to whine about something involving draft picks.

Why? They seemed to make similar trades in 2002. Oh, wait, those "facts". In the words of the great philosopher Brian Fantana: Why don't you sit a few rounds out here champ...maybe stop talking. You just want to make yourself upset about something and you're really stretching here.

Skaggsrules, welcome to "whine" country. I am happy to welcome you, although I am sure you would rather not be a member.:rolleyes: I loved your post, and hope you don't "sit out a few rounds".


You cannot possibly know or assume who we would have taken or not. Pining for a player now is ridiculous.

I could say the same thing about the entire mock draft you just posted. It is ok for you to speculate but not for others. Geez, lighten up!

Originally Posted by akhhorus
I would rather have had Cooley than that 2nd in retrospect.

That is a false choice. If we would have traded more wisely, we could have kept the 2nd and drafted Cooley in the 3rd, as Skaggsrules pointed out in his response. The McIntosh trade was indefensible, even if he turns out to be a good player. You just don't trade 2 2nds to get a 2nd the way they did. It is dumb. They don't have a 2nd next year, shaping up to be a high 2nd, because of last year's 2nd-rounder. It is just not smart trading and drafting. You can disagree, but no one who really is looking objectively at the Skins trading history would say that they trade or draft wisely.

[Skins7ny]

We also got cap benefits also.

What on earth are you talking about?
We took a $9M cap hit to trade Coles.
It was probably worth it just to get rid
of him because he was such a jerk, but
the cap ramifications of that deal were terrible.

[akhhorus]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Skaggsrules, welcome to "whine" country. I am happy to welcome you, although I am sure you would rather not be a member.:rolleyes: I loved your post, and hope you don't "sit out a few rounds".

*yawn* Maybe you all can go to group therapy together.

I could say the same thing about the entire mock draft you just posted. It is ok for you to speculate but not for others. Geez, lighten up!

Big difference: Ours can actually happen. The moves we make in this mock are actually possible. We cannot go back into time and draft someone else in 2005. Am I right?

I know you have problems between reality and the impossible, maybe this will help guide your way back to the land of reality.

That is a false choice. If we would have traded more wisely, we could have kept the 2nd and drafted Cooley in the 3rd, as Skaggsrules pointed out in his response.

What I love is that you and your ilk base all your complaining about draft picks on counter factual speculation. Nothing real, just logic impossibilities.

The McIntosh trade was indefensible, even if he turns out to be a good player. You just don't trade 2 2nds to get a 2nd the way they did. It is dumb. They don't have a 2nd next year, shaping up to be a high 2nd, because of last year's 2nd-rounder. It is just not smart trading and drafting. You can disagree, but no one who really is looking objectively at the Skins trading history would say that they trade or draft wisely.

I disagree, but maybe thats because I'm an "apologist". lmao. Seriously, what are you going to do if the skins make a move you actually like? Not that I think this is possible, I think no matter what you'll find a way to complain even about trading a 7th rounder for Julius Peppers.

[akhhorus]

What on earth are you talking about?
We took a $9M cap hit to trade Coles.
It was probably worth it just to get rid
of him because he was such a jerk, but
the cap ramifications of that deal were terrible.

Actually, it was 4.5 million(9 million minus what was to be Coles' cap hit in 2005). And considering that Coles' contract called for him to cost about 15-17 million in 2006 and 2007 and Moss' is about 8 million for both of those seasons combined....basic math tells me that we saved money.

[Skins7ny]

*yawn* Maybe you all can go to group therapy together.


Please tell me who your therapist is, so we can avoid him like the plague-s/he obviously isn't any good!!

[QUOTE]Big difference: Ours can actually happen. The moves we make in this mock are actually possible. We cannot go back into time and draft someone else in 2005. Am I right?


The point is that the moves that they have made have been poor. The stuff you read and hear about around the league is that most front office people think that the Skins FO does not know what they are doing. I recognize that many FO types are jealous of or angry at Snyder for his free-spending ways and driving up salaries both for players and the coaching ranks. I recognize that everybody has an agenda (I am wondering what yours is), and you can't take everything a FO type says to the press at face value, especially when the quote is not for attribution. However, it is pretty obvious looking at the other trades that get made around the league that the Skins don't know how to negotiate trades properly. And the record, and performance on the field does not lie. That is the one objective thing even you have to agree on. Our poor record is not happening in a vacuum. It is being earned, by everyone from the front office on down to the players.


I disagree, but maybe thats because I'm an "apologist". lmao. Seriously, what are you going to do if the skins make a move you actually like? Not that I think this is possible, I think no matter what you'll find a way to complain even about trading a 7th rounder for Julius Peppers.

The Skins have made moves I liked, many of them before I started posting. For example, I liked the move they made when Gibbs came aboard to stop signing washed-up names, and start signing up-and-coming free agents like Marcus Washington. I was happy with the Sean Taylor choice, and with the Carlos Rogers choice (although I would have preferred Merriman). I liked the Priouleau signing, the Patten signing, the Rabach signing, etc. I agreed with letting Pierce go for the money he was getting (although I may have been wrong about that one), I agreed with letting Clark go (I still do, he is a good player, but I was happy they were looking to upgrade, they just picked the wrong guy to upgrade with). I loved the way they traded down in the draft under Joe Mendes, the year they ended up with 10 picks.

Yes, I complain a lot about what they do (as do other people on this site). If you haven't noticed, there has been a lot to complain about over the last 14 years, and not a lot of things to be happy about. I am just sick of losing, and am tired of seeing the franchise go about things in what I think is the wrong way. I will guarantee you that when it gets turned around and we start winning, I will be one of the happiest fans on this site. Although then you'll probably find something else to insult me about.

[akhhorus]

Please tell me who your therapist is, so we can avoid him like the plague-s/he obviously isn't any good!!

Maybe they can teach you how to quote a post properly.

The point is that the moves that they have made have been poor. The stuff you read and hear about around the league is that most front office people think that the Skins FO does not know what they are doing.

The same people who swear year in and year out that the Cards and Vikings make great moves and will make that big leap to the playoffs?

I recognize that many FO types are jealous of or angry at Snyder for his free-spending ways and driving up salaries both for players and the coaching ranks.

Well, the anger is misplaced. Snyder actually doesn't pay players that much(the sheer numbers look big, but the nuts and bolts are small). The anger should be at the agents who use Snyder as a foil to drive prices up.

I recognize that everybody has an agenda (I am wondering what yours is), and you can't take everything a FO type says to the press at face value, especially when the quote is not for attribution. However, it is pretty obvious looking at the other trades that get made around the league that the Skins don't know how to negotiate trades properly.

They have a different trading style that you like: willing to give up whats needed for what they percieve to be superior talent. The jury is still out on whether they will be vindicating since two of their biggest trades havent played significant action yet. If they pan out to be solid players, then what they gave up is irrelevant.

And the record, and performance on the field does not lie. That is the one objective thing even you have to agree on. Our poor record is not happening in a vacuum. It is being earned, by everyone from the front office on down to the players.

Perhaps. But the problem with this team isn't talent acquistion.

The Skins have made moves I liked, many of them before I started posting. For example, I liked the move they made when Gibbs came aboard to stop signing washed-up names, and start signing up-and-coming free agents like Marcus Washington. I was happy with the Sean Taylor choice, and with the Carlos Rogers choice (although I would have preferred Merriman). I liked the Priouleau signing, the Patten signing, the Rabach signing, etc. I agreed with letting Pierce go for the money he was getting (although I may have been wrong about that one), I agreed with letting Clark go (I still do, he is a good player, but I was happy they were looking to upgrade, they just picked the wrong guy to upgrade with). I loved the way they traded down in the draft under Joe Mendes, the year they ended up with 10 picks.

Hmm..its hard to beleive you when you never have mentioned these until right now. Sounds like you're just trying to compensate here

Yes, I complain a lot about what they do (as do other people on this site). If you haven't noticed, there has been a lot to complain about over the last 14 years, and not a lot of things to be happy about. I am just sick of losing, and am tired of seeing the franchise go about things in what I think is the wrong way. I will guarantee you that when it gets turned around and we start winning, I will be one of the happiest fans on this site. Although then you'll probably find something else to insult me about.

I havent insulted you yet. And there are people who complain, but some of those people also congratulate the team when we do well. I have yet to see you do that. The point is: all you do is whine about what the skins do. I know I'm not the only person who sees this, if you want your whining to have credibility, point out the good when it happens also. You have neglected to do that in your time here. And I don't buy that "well I agreed with moves before I got here" line. You've complained about moves that happened before you got here also, so either you're hypocritical or a liar. Take your pick.

[Skaggsrules]

You cannot possibly know or assume who we would have taken or not. Pining for a player now is ridiculous.

You're right, I don't know who we would've drafted, but we would've had a nice pick with a great talent pool which included those previous two player.

Like I said: Coles had a massive deal and a degenerative injury. Coles had about 2100-2300 yards in 2003 and 2004: thats not much more than Moss had. Yes, Moss had a hamstring injury, but there were serious questions about Coles' toe. We made out big time on that deal. But you obviously just want to whine about something involving draft picks.

I'm not saying the Jets got the better of the deal in the end. Both had injury problems, but Coles still played and produced, netting more value. Coles loved the Jets, the Jets loved Coles, they just couldn't match the price in 2003....2154 vs. 1943, not big, you're right, but Coles being a Pro Bowler vs. a guy who had one half of season meeting expectation. Coles' contract, we would take most of the hit with his signing bonus, and if it becomes un-managable in New York, they can re-negotiate. We still could've netted a pick, even if it was in like the 6th or 7th, like when we got rid of Ramsey and Gardner

Let me see, about 3000 yards in two full seasons, setting new rushing record for the franchise versus good, but inconsistant CB play. Hmmm. I think you're just looking for things to whine about now.

Inconsistent play that got him to the Pro Bowl, and a top 3 corner as a Redskin. He was a great Redskin, he shut down a lot of top receivers, all corners get burned, like all running backs don't always go for 100 yards. You can't compare what the two have done for us, and i wasn't trying to, I just want to say that you could still get a pick out of Denver, whether or not they have leverage.....They could get Champ Bailey and our second, for Portis and their 2nd (13 picks later I think)...can't make up a deal now, because it's strictly opinion.


Like I said: you're just looking for things to whine about now. Thats a complete counterfactual. And if Rocky turns out to be a good player, it was worth the trade.

We could have more, "wah wah wah," you also can't say that there is NO WAY he could've made it to us, you don't know

Why? They seemed to make similar trades in 2002. Oh, wait, those "facts". In the words of the great philosopher Brian Fantana: Why don't you sit a few rounds out here champ...maybe stop talking. You just want to make yourself upset about something and you're really stretching here.

2002 wasn't under Gibbs, which is what I thought we were referencing, and those were ok, expect for trading down 10 spots in the first and only getting a late 3rd and 7th....Ok, so a lot of my arguments are based on opinion, so......it's wrong to think outside of the box, it's wrong to see situations and assess them to create a situation that might've happened....

[Skins7ny]

Well, the anger is misplaced. Snyder actually doesn't pay players that much(the sheer numbers look big, but the nuts and bolts are small). The anger should be at the agents who use Snyder as a foil to drive prices up.

Make up your mind. Either Snyder doesn't pay players that much, or they should be angry at the agents for driving up the prices. Which is it?

They have a different trading style that you like: willing to give up whats needed for what they percieve to be superior talent. The jury is still out on whether they will be vindicating since two of their biggest trades havent played significant action yet. If they pan out to be solid players, then what they gave up is irrelevant.

The jury just called. They say that we are 3-6. They also say that you should stop defending trades that contribute to our being out of serious playoff contention before mid-November. All the teams we have traded with recently (the Jets, Broncos and 49ers) are still in playoff contention, and they own our draft picks next year!

Perhaps. But the problem with this team isn't talent acquistion.

So you are saying that Gibbs and his staff are the problem? Are you saying he should be fired? If the talent is on the team, and they are not performing up to their talent level, the coaching staff is usually blamed for that. Reasonable minds can differ. I will agree with you that the coaching staff has done a poor job this year (if that is what you are saying).

Hmm..its hard to beleive you when you never have mentioned these until right now. Sounds like you're just trying to compensate here

I've never been asked. Thanks for asking.

I havent insulted you yet. And there are people who complain, but some of those people also congratulate the team when we do well. I have yet to see you do that. The point is: all you do is whine about what the skins do. I know I'm not the only person who sees this, if you want your whining to have credibility, point out the good when it happens also. You have neglected to do that in your time here. And I don't buy that "well I agreed with moves before I got here" line. You've complained about moves that happened before you got here also, so either you're hypocritical or a liar. Take your pick.

Sigh. I am neither a hypocrite nor a liar. I have been very consistent in what I have had to say, you just don't like what I say, or apparently, the manner in which I say it. I will be happy to start pointing out the good when something good starts happening. I will also challenge you to take off your burgundy - and -gold colored glasses every once and a while and criticize the team unqualifiedly.

By the way, this isn't a Jason Campbell thread, but I am very excited about watching him play this Sunday and think he is going to be an excellent pro. I am optimistic that his learning curve is going to be very short, and he will perform well right out of the gate. I think we will finally get to see what Brandon Lloyd and some of our other skill position players can do with a quarterback to get them the ball downfield.

[danny's stogie]

That akh is a mighty large catch. We'll be burning lamps off his blubber for months if he can ever be harpooned.

[akhhorus]

Make up your mind. Either Snyder doesn't pay players that much, or they should be angry at the agents for driving up the prices. Which is it?

I believe that was clear from my post. Maybe you should re-read it again.

The jury just called. They say that we are 3-6. They also say that you should stop defending trades that contribute to our being out of serious playoff contention before mid-November. All the teams we have traded with recently (the Jets, Broncos and 49ers) are still in playoff contention, and they own our draft picks next year!

The 49ers aren't in playoff contention any more than we are(1 game better than us). And our only trade with them recently was Taylor Jacobs for Mike Rumph I believe, how exactly are they relevant to this discussion again? The jury is out until Campbell and Rocky play a season.

So you are saying that Gibbs and his staff are the problem? Are you saying he should be fired? If the talent is on the team, and they are not performing up to their talent level, the coaching staff is usually blamed for that. Reasonable minds can differ. I will agree with you that the coaching staff has done a poor job this year (if that is what you are saying).

I think you're reading a bit too much into my post. Gibbs has done a great job acquiring talent. However, the team isn't performing on the field. Whether that's coaching or regression of talent that was already here is the question. And too bad you're not a reasonable mind.

I've never been asked. Thanks for asking.

BS. You've had infinite opportunities to show your positive opinions here. You've just avoided every opportunity

Sigh. I am neither a hypocrite nor a liar. I have been very consistent in what I have had to say, you just don't like what I say, or apparently, the manner in which I say it. I will be happy to start pointing out the good when something good starts happening. I will also challenge you to take off your burgundy - and -gold colored glasses every once and a while and criticize the team unqualifiedly.

I have criticized the team, but I also point out the good. And you're one or the other: a hypocrite or a liar. You claim that you weren't around here to point out the moves you agreed with, but you're more than happy to criticize the moves you weren't around here for. So...either stop talking about the moves you weren't around here for(which disqualifies every move before october 2005: which by the way is interesting, you didn't bother to post here when the skins were winning, but jumped in as soon as the season was almost over to whine) or be consistant. We know what the real answer is here: you just want to bitch and moan about the skins and will not give them any credit no matter what.

By the way, this isn't a Jason Campbell thread, but I am very excited about watching him play this Sunday and think he is going to be an excellent pro. I am optimistic that his learning curve is going to be very short, and he will perform well right out of the gate. I think we will finally get to see what Brandon Lloyd and some of our other skill position players can do with a quarterback to get them the ball downfield.

Its non-sequitor theater!

[akhhorus]

You're right, I don't know who we would've drafted, but we would've had a nice pick with a great talent pool which included those previous two player.

Its still a counter factual.

I'm not saying the Jets got the better of the deal in the end. Both had injury problems, but Coles still played and produced, netting more value. Coles loved the Jets, the Jets loved Coles, they just couldn't match the price in 2003....2154 vs. 1943, not big, you're right, but Coles being a Pro Bowler vs. a guy who had one half of season meeting expectation. Coles' contract, we would take most of the hit with his signing bonus, and if it becomes un-managable in New York, they can re-negotiate. We still could've netted a pick, even if it was in like the 6th or 7th, like when we got rid of Ramsey and Gardner

They did renegotiate and gave him as big a deal as we gave him. So, you're pining for a 6th or 7th rounder now? Wow are you stretching.

Inconsistent play that got him to the Pro Bowl, and a top 3 corner as a Redskin.

He was not a top 3 Cb as a Skin and disappeared in the big games(you know, 1/3 of his INTs as a skins were off of Plummer and Champ never had an INT against a playoff team?).

He was a great Redskin, he shut down a lot of top receivers, all corners get burned, like all running backs don't always go for 100 yards. You can't compare what the two have done for us, and i wasn't trying to, I just want to say that you could still get a pick out of Denver, whether or not they have leverage.....They could get Champ Bailey and our second, for Portis and their 2nd (13 picks later I think)...can't make up a deal now, because it's strictly opinion.

And you can believe what you want. I think its pretty much a given that Portis is the reason we made the playoffs last year. Champ can never say that.

We could have more, "wah wah wah," you also can't say that there is NO WAY he could've made it to us, you don't know

I love how you're criticizing me for something you did. Lmao.

2002 wasn't under Gibbs, which is what I thought we were referencing, and those were ok, expect for trading down 10 spots in the first and only getting a late 3rd and 7th.

We traded down twice in 2002 and got more than that. And it was under Snyder and Cerrato, who some people beleive still have a say in the final word in personnel decisions now.

...Ok, so a lot of my arguments are based on opinion, so......it's wrong to think outside of the box, it's wrong to see situations and assess them to create a situation that might've happened....

Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. Playing the counter factual crying game about the past is worthless.

[Skins7ny]

[QUOTE=akhhorus]The 49ers aren't in playoff contention any more than we are(1 game better than us). And our only trade with them recently was Taylor Jacobs for Mike Rumph I believe, how exactly are they relevant to this discussion again? The jury is out until Campbell and Rocky play a season.

They own our 4th in next year for this year's acquisition of WR Brandon Lloyd. I don't blame you for forgetting, since Lloyd has rarely been seen anywhere on Sundays.

I think you're reading a bit too much into my post. Gibbs has done a great job acquiring talent. However, the team isn't performing on the field. Whether that's coaching or regression of talent that was already here is the question. And too bad you're not a reasonable mind.

I know this fits in with your stubborn argument that the talent is there, it just isn't being utilized. However, when talent doesn't perform on the field, it may also be because the talent is overrated. To paraphrase a really overrated movie (I hope that is not whining, if you want me to I'll give you a list of movies I really enjoyed), "talent is as talent does". Talent is 3-6. It hasn't been injuries, it hasn't been blown calls by the refs. We are 3-6 because we have earned it.

I have criticized the team, but I also point out the good. And you're one or the other: a hypocrite or a liar. You claim that you weren't around here to point out the moves you agreed with, but you're more than happy to criticize the moves you weren't around here for. So...either stop talking about the moves you weren't around here for(which disqualifies every move before october 2005: which by the way is interesting, you didn't bother to post here when the skins were winning, but jumped in as soon as the season was almost over to whine) or be consistant. We know what the real answer is here: you just want to bitch and moan about the skins and will not give them any credit no matter what.

Your criticisms of the team are usually couched in a defense of Gibbs' selection of players, or advising us to withhold judgment until the season is farther along. We are nine weeks in. We are 3-6. We have 1 pick in the first 4 rounds next year, and I suspect we will be way over the salary cap. The facts have overtaken your arguments. You can stop putting on a front now.


Its non-sequitor theater!

It is actually non-sequitur theatre. You see, I said something nice and optimistic about the Skins, and you still found a way to criticize me. Maybe that make YOU a hypocrite.

[akhhorus]

They own our 4th in next year for this year's acquisition of WR Brandon Lloyd. I don't blame you for forgetting, since Lloyd has rarely been seen anywhere on Sundays.

You're right on that. But still not much. I was against Lloyd, but I think, when they throw the ball towards him, he's a pretty good WR. Yes, he doesn't have the catches, but he draws plenty of penalties and double teams. If used properly, he is a real talent. Whether thats Saunders or Brunell's fault is open for discussion(and another thread).

I know this fits in with your stubborn argument that the talent is there, it just isn't being utilized. However, when talent doesn't
perform on the field, it may also be because the talent is overrated. To paraphrase a really overrated movie (I hope that is not whining, if you want me to I'll give you a list of movies I really enjoyed), "talent is as talent does". Talent is 3-6. It hasn't been injuries, it hasn't been blown calls by the refs. We are 3-6 because we have earned it.

I would make a case that some of our struggles, especially on defense can be a product of injuries and players regressing for no apparent reasons(rogers and washington tops on that list). On offense, losing Portis in the preseason meant that Saunders never got a feel for him during games and that had to hurt this team.

Your criticisms of the team are usually couched in a defense of Gibbs' selection of players, or advising us to withhold judgment until the season is farther along. We are nine weeks in. We are 3-6. We have 1 pick in the first 4 rounds next year, and I suspect we will be way over the salary cap. The facts have overtaken your arguments. You can stop putting on a front now.

What facts? I have couched my defense of Gibbs that two of his top picks recently have barely played(which I believe...is true). Until they do, any judgment of his drafting is ridiculous. And see, you got to whine about more things.

It is actually non-sequitur theatre. You see, I said something nice and optimistic about the Skins, and you still found a way to criticize me. Maybe that make YOU a hypocrite.

Thanks for trying to avoid the issue. I'll put it to you again:

You claim that you weren't around here to point out the moves you agreed with, but you're more than happy to criticize the moves you weren't around here for. So...either stop talking about the moves you weren't around here for(which disqualifies every move before october 2005: which by the way is interesting, you didn't bother to post here when the skins were winning, but jumped in as soon as the season was almost over to whine) or be consistant. Pick a side.

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

An interesting debate going on here. I'd lke to add my .02 - I probably fall somewhere in the middle:
In general I think the FO has given away too many 2nd & 3rd rounders to acquire players and I'll be more specific.
1. giving up a 3rd rounder to get Brunell in '04
I disagree with this move. Brunell was coming off an injury and the only other team I knew to be intreseted in him was Miami. I find it doubtful that the Fins would have matched the FA contract we gave to Brunell if we had let the Jags release him. We gave up a 2nd in '05 to draft Cooley in the 3rd we gave away - Cooley is worth it but I don't believe we had to trade with the Saints if we had waited for Brunell to hit FA. I also we only got 1/2 year of good production from Brunell. I don't think he led us to the playoffs in'05. His paly in the 2nd 1/2 of '05 was spotty at best. And he played poorly in the post season once we got there.

2. Adding a 2nd rounder to the Chump/Portis deal.
I disagree with this move. I agree that we could have gotten a 2nd rounder instead of gave up 1. Generally top notch CBs are considered more valuable than top notch RBs in the NFL. Especially in Denver's case since they can get good RB production from almost anyone (and a good reason why they didn't want to renegotiate Portis deal). However, I would have been happy with just an even Chump for Portis swap that would have allowed us to keep our '04 2nd rounder.

3. Moss for Coles
I agree with this move. Frnakly we got a better player, better team guy for a cheaper price. the skins FO wins this hands down.

4. Trading up to get McIntosh
I agree with this move. Early in the 2nd round of the '06 draft there was a real run on LBs and Rocky ight have been nabbed by someone, even Oakland. OLB was position of need at the time and there was a serious drop off in LB talent after Ryans, McIntosh & Howard so I don't have a problem with this trade.

5. Trade for Lloyd
Jury is still out. I have no doubt that Lloyd is a talented player but considering how little the Skins have used him I have reservations about this move. It comes down to value and so far thsi hasn't looked good though it may reap benefits in the future. It also has to do with the type of receiver that Lloyd is. The Skins seem to be cornering the market on WRs that are <= 6' 200lbs. I feel we need a bigger body that can be physical over the middle of the field. What I wanted the Skins to do in Fa last year was sign Kevin Walter from the Bengals. Many talked of signing Kelly Wahsington from the Bengals but Walter was the guy that kept him on the bench in the 2nd 1/2 of last season. When Chris Henry got hurt in the Bengals playoff game against Pittsburgh Walter palyed and looked good - he was their leading reciver. Houston signed Walter in FA and what did he cost the Texans - a 7th round draft pick. Frankly we could have also drafted Colston or Hank Baskett with either of our 7th rounders last year and used the 3rd rounder for a decent backup olineman like College, Jahri evans, Ryan O'Callaghan that we could develop (20/20 hindsight and whining, I know).

4. Trade tor Duckett
Jury is still out. Even if Ducket produces well in the 2nd half of the year and we lose him in FA I will consider thisa bad trade. If we sign him then I am OK with it.

Generally I think the Skins have traded away a lot of 2nd & 3rd rounders that could provide what I think this team lacks - quality young depth. We are stuck with castoffs from other teams at Oline and CB. At one point this year we had two backup Olineman who were with THE TEXANS last year - the worst oline in the NFL. If we are using their rejects we have serious depth issues. Not only that the Skins are one of the older teams in the league so FA hasn't been entirely successful. Some say this team lacks fire and passion. I think having some younger, hungry players that will push the well-paid vets for their jobs would add some of that fire and passion.

[shally]

An interesting debate going on here. I'd lke to add my .02 - I probably fall somewhere in the middle:
In general I think the FO has given away too many 2nd & 3rd rounders to acquire players and I'll be more specific.
1. giving up a 3rd rounder to get Brunell in '04
I disagree with this move. Brunell was coming off an injury and the only other team I knew to be intreseted in him was Miami. I find it doubtful that the Fins would have matched the FA contract we gave to Brunell if we had let the Jags release him. We gave up a 2nd in '05 to draft Cooley in the 3rd we gave away - Cooley is worth it but I don't believe we had to trade with the Saints if we had waited for Brunell to hit FA. I also we only got 1/2 year of

Generally I think the Skins have traded away a lot of 2nd & 3rd rounders that could provide what I think this team lacks - quality young depth. We are stuck with castoffs from other teams at Oline and CB. At one point this year we had two backup Olineman who were with THE TEXANS last year - the worst oline in the NFL. If we are using their rejects we have serious depth issues. Not only that the Skins are one of the older teams in the league so FA hasn't been entirely successful. Some say this team lacks fire and passion. I think having some younger, hungry players that will push the well-paid vets for their jobs would add some of that fire and passion.

we had some younger players for th e o line this preseason, but the front office decided they would rather have guys like walter and wade than guys like harvey, pino and ndukwe... either these guys were not really that good, or the front office was short sided and traded short term gain (perceived) for development.. that has to stop

[WinnpegSkinsFan]

Sorry AKH - meant to thank you the mock. As allways good work. I agree with all the needs that the Skins have addressed in you effort. My best to you and Becky.

[Skaggsrules]

Its still a counter factual.

Mark Brunell should be brought up into this point. As Winnipeg pointed out, only Miami was the only other interested team, and with the contract we were offering, Miami wouldn't match/beat it (yeah, I can't prove it, but we know they wouldn't, though this probably isn't good enough for akh).........Having that pick to pick Cooley instead of trading with the Saints, who's pick we acquired was after the original, is not counter factual, because counter factual statements need absoultely false claims, which the Cooley one is not, we were set on Cooley. And having a second pick the next year is not counterfactual, because we would have a pick to use on a talent pool, a fact, to say for certain that we'd pick a certain player is counter factual, which is why I changed my response in my last post, instead of saying a specific player

They did renegotiate and gave him as big a deal as we gave him. So, you're pining for a 6th or 7th rounder now? Wow are you stretching.

Sure I'm stretching, but it was plausible at that time

He was not a top 3 Cb as a Skin and disappeared in the big games(you know, 1/3 of his INTs as a skins were off of Plummer and Champ never had an INT against a playoff team?).

INT's don't make a CB...Walt Harris has 4 this year, and he was in the dog house most of, if not all, last year......As for Champ being a top 3, my opinion he was, your opinion he wasn't....all interpretation

And you can believe what you want. I think its pretty much a given that Portis is the reason we made the playoffs last year. Champ can never say that.

I made a mistake and carried this on a tangent off my original discussion that led us here, but what Portis has done for the Redskins doesn't matter with the trade at that time, same with Moss and Cooley, it's about the trade at the time it was made, which i wanted to talk about all along......Portis was coming from a system that was notorious for RB's who played well in Denver and not on another team, Champ was an elite corner. At that time, Champ didn't want to stay, but he wouldn't be able to walk because of the franchise tag, which lessened the leverage Denver had....Even if it was straight up, I would've been fine.

I love how you're criticizing me for something you did. Lmao.

You criticized my statement (which was not counter factual as well....If said Rocky would've fallen to us, it's counter factual, but I said might've, which is possible, and not presented as a factual statement), and made a similar statement (NO WAY he would've fallen to us), which I thought was funny and commented on

We traded down twice in 2002 and got more than that. And it was under Snyder and Cerrato, who some people beleive still have a say in the final word in personnel decisions now.

I'm commenting on the trade with the Pats to fall 10 spots to 32 from 22 so the Pats could grab Daniel Graham, who they coveted, and only netted a 3rd and 7th with that....10 spots in the first round is worth more than that....

[Skaggsrules]

Oh, and other than this really long debate......Nice mock

[akhhorus]

Mark Brunell should be brought up into this point. As Winnipeg pointed out, only Miami was the only other interested team, and with the contract we were offering, Miami wouldn't match/beat it (yeah, I can't prove it, but we know they wouldn't, though this probably isn't good enough for akh).

No, they were reported by many sources as interested in Brunell. What they offered Jax and what they offered Brunell is speculation. We offered Brunell a big bonus, but little in base salary. Brunell never was going to see a vast majority of his contract.

Having that pick to pick Cooley instead of trading with the Saints, who's pick we acquired was after the original, is not counter factual, because counter factual statements need absoultely false claims, which the Cooley one is not, we were set on Cooley. And having a second pick the next year is not counterfactual, because we would have a pick to use on a talent pool, a fact, to say for certain that we'd pick a certain player is counter factual, which is why I changed my response in my last post, instead of saying a specific player

You don't know what a counterfactual is. It doesn't require an absolute falsehood. Its when you speculate on what might have been if something other than what happened, happened.

Sure I'm stretching, but it was plausible at that time

Why ruin a trade for a player you want by getting greedy and asking for a nothing pick?

INT's don't make a CB...Walt Harris has 4 this year, and he was in the dog house most of, if not all, last year......As for Champ being a top 3, my opinion he was, your opinion he wasn't....all interpretation

Harris has 3 in one game(shocker, against Oakland), so his stats are skewed. Harris was a decent CB, we just railed on him for no reason much like people here rail on players for little reason. Champ was a good Cb, top 3 while he was here? No way.

I made a mistake and carried this on a tangent off my original discussion that led us here, but what Portis has done for the Redskins doesn't matter with the trade at that time, same with Moss and Cooley, it's about the trade at the time it was made, which i wanted to talk about all along.

It matters when assessing whether or not the trade was worth it. Who cares if we gave a bit too much if we got quality in return. I would rather give up an extra pick if it meant getting quality in return(even if it means waiting a year before we knew that). Being economical with picks and passing on talent because of it is a sure way to keep going 7-9/8-8 and never getting better.

Portis was coming from a system that was notorious for RB's who played well in Denver and not on another team, Champ was an elite corner. At that time, Champ didn't want to stay, but he wouldn't be able to walk because of the franchise tag, which lessened the leverage Denver had....Even if it was straight up, I would've been fine.

Well, you're right that Champ was never going to stay. So, the trade is really Portis for a 2nd. Thats a no brainer. None of the rumored deals we heard for Champ were anything more than that. I don't think we made a bad trade at all. Portis is the heart of the team and produces year in and year out. Giving up a 2nd and Champ(or just a 2nd) for a guy who-if he plays 16 games-is a guaranteed 1300-1400 yards a season is a steal.

You criticized my statement (which was not counter factual as well....If said Rocky would've fallen to us, it's counter factual, but I said might've, which is possible, and not presented as a factual statement), and made a similar statement (NO WAY he would've fallen to us), which I thought was funny and commented on

It is a counterfactual. You don't know if he wouldn't have been there, just as I couldn't have known if he wouldn't have. However, since another LB went the pick after him, its a rather safe assumption. The point is, you can't criticize me for what you just did.

I'm commenting on the trade with the Pats to fall 10 spots to 32 from 22 so the Pats could grab Daniel Graham, who they coveted, and only netted a 3rd and 7th with that....10 spots in the first round is worth more than that....

Depending on what the Draft value chart was back then, thats about fair(maybe a 6th rounder level value towards the Pats). And in 2005, Seattle offered us a 3rd and a 7th to trade up from 26 to 9. We passed.

[skinsfan36]

we had some younger players for th e o line this preseason, but the front office decided they would rather have guys like walter and wade than guys like harvey, pino and ndukwe... either these guys were not really that good, or the front office was short sided and traded short term gain (perceived) for development.. that has to stop

yea we should resign them ndukwe is a free agent now. pino is on the ravens ps,and harvey is on the eagles ps. wade wont be here next year. pucillo probably wont be either. we did pick up whitley who is a younger lineman that was with the broncos but hes been inactive

[skinsfan36]

yea we should resign them ndukwe is a free agent now. pino is on the ravens ps,and harvey is on the eagles ps. wade wont be here next year. pucillo probably wont be either. we did pick up whitley who is a younger lineman that was with the broncos but hes been inactive


correction ndukwe and pino are on the ravens practice squad. ugh!

[Skins7ny]

An interesting debate going on here. I'd lke to add my .02 - I probably fall somewhere in the middle:
In general I think the FO has given away too many 2nd & 3rd rounders to acquire players and I'll be more specific.
1. giving up a 3rd rounder to get Brunell in '04
I disagree with this move. Brunell was coming off an injury and the only other team I knew to be intreseted in him was Miami. I find it doubtful that the Fins would have matched the FA contract we gave to Brunell if we had let the Jags release him. We gave up a 2nd in '05 to draft Cooley in the 3rd we gave away - Cooley is worth it but I don't believe we had to trade with the Saints if we had waited for Brunell to hit FA. I also we only got 1/2 year of good production from Brunell. I don't think he led us to the playoffs in'05. His paly in the 2nd 1/2 of '05 was spotty at best. And he played poorly in the post season once we got there.

2. Adding a 2nd rounder to the Chump/Portis deal.
I disagree with this move. I agree that we could have gotten a 2nd rounder instead of gave up 1. Generally top notch CBs are considered more valuable than top notch RBs in the NFL. Especially in Denver's case since they can get good RB production from almost anyone (and a good reason why they didn't want to renegotiate Portis deal). However, I would have been happy with just an even Chump for Portis swap that would have allowed us to keep our '04 2nd rounder.

I agree with your analysis of these two trades. I remember the Jets were said to have offered their 1 and 3 for Bailey that year, and they picked 14th in the first round (they drafted Vilma). I would have taken that deal and drafted Steven Jackson, who was available then (although you never know if our having that pick instead of NY would have caused the Rams to trade up ahead of us) and who fit the type of offense Gibbs and Bugel ran here the first time much better than Portis did (and does). Portis is an excellent back, and I have a lot of respect for him, but I wonder if, money aside, he regrets not being in a pure zone blocking system of the type he had in Denver, that suited his running style better and allowed him to pile up all that yardage, without taking the same level of punishment.

3. Moss for Coles
I agree with this move. Frankly we got a better player, better team guy for a cheaper price. the skins FO wins this hands down.

I agreed with this move at the time, although I was very concerned with Moss' injury history/durability and was strongly opposed to giving him the Danny Special when he hadn't really earned it in the league at that point. Even though Coles has been productive this year, it was obviously a great decision, even with the salary cap hit we took to get rid of Coles. Addition by subtraction in getting rid of Coles, and Moss has been everything we could have hoped for and more.

4. Trading up to get McIntosh
I agree with this move. Early in the 2nd round of the '06 draft there was a real run on LBs and Rocky ight have been nabbed by someone, even Oakland. OLB was position of need at the time and there was a serious drop off in LB talent after Ryans, McIntosh & Howard so I don't have a problem with this trade.

I really disagreed with this move, and still do, and still will even if Rocky pans out as a starter. Weakside LB is one of the easier positions in the league to fill. The Redskins expended 2 #2s and a 6th on a #2. Do the math. It is not a winning proposition to do this. I would rather have had the guy that the would have had at the bottom part of the round and the guy that we would have gotten with the 2nd next year, which is now around 40th overall. A good-drafting team (which admittedly we are not) should be able to turn those picks into 2 starters. And the 6th-rounder should have at least a 50% chance of making the team as a special teamer/role player/developmental prospect. Also, rumor was that the Skins made the move one spot early to get D'Qwell Jackson, and settled for McIntosh when the Browns grabbed him.

5. Trade for Lloyd
Jury is still out. I have no doubt that Lloyd is a talented player but considering how little the Skins have used him I have reservations about this move. It comes down to value and so far thsi hasn't looked good though it may reap benefits in the future. It also has to do with the type of receiver that Lloyd is. The Skins seem to be cornering the market on WRs that are <= 6' 200lbs. I feel we need a bigger body that can be physical over the middle of the field. What I wanted the Skins to do in Fa last year was sign Kevin Walter from the Bengals. Many talked of signing Kelly Wahsington from the Bengals but Walter was the guy that kept him on the bench in the 2nd 1/2 of last season. When Chris Henry got hurt in the Bengals playoff game against Pittsburgh Walter palyed and looked good - he was their leading reciver. Houston signed Walter in FA and what did he cost the Texans - a 7th round draft pick. Frankly we could have also drafted Colston or Hank Baskett with either of our 7th rounders last year and used the 3rd rounder for a decent backup olineman like College, Jahri evans, Ryan O'Callaghan that we could develop (20/20 hindsight and whining, I know).

I thought we gave up way too much for a guy with a questionable reputation who probably would not have been in much demand elsewhere. That said, I agree it is too early to judge this trade, given that Brunell clearly would not throw to him. We will see if it is because Brunell didn't have the arm strength to match Lloyd's preferred downfield routes, or because Brunell did not trust him to run the right route, be where he was supposed to be, and catch the ball. I am optimistic that the Lloyd trade will be viewed more positively by the end of the year. That said, I would not have given him the Danny Special either-he had not done enough in the league to merit that contract.

4. Trade tor Duckett
Jury is still out. Even if Ducket produces well in the 2nd half of the year and we lose him in FA I will consider thisa bad trade. If we sign him then I am OK with it.

Agree. I think Duckett is much more suited for this system. I wonder if the FO is considering trading Portis to a team with a high 1st that might need a RB and runs the Denver-type offense (Houston Texans, anyone), and re-sign Duckett to be our workhorse back. I just think he would be a better fit for the offense we prefer to run, and that you need to run in the NFC East. I am not trying to make trouble :rolleyes:, I am just wondering if that is why they shut Portis down, to minimize any concerns about his injuries in the off-season.


Generally I think the Skins have traded away a lot of 2nd & 3rd rounders that could provide what I think this team lacks - quality young depth. We are stuck with castoffs from other teams at Oline and CB. At one point this year we had two backup Olineman who were with THE TEXANS last year - the worst oline in the NFL. If we are using their rejects we have serious depth issues. Not only that the Skins are one of the older teams in the league so FA hasn't been entirely successful. Some say this team lacks fire and passion. I think having some younger, hungry players that will push the well-paid vets for their jobs would add some of that fire and passion.

Our OL depth this year is probably the worst in the league, and that is saying something. We have been fortunate not to have sustained any missed starts on the OL this year. I cannot believe that the FO and coaching staff went into this year with the depth that they had.

AkhhorusIt matters when assessing whether or not the trade was worth it. Who cares if we gave a bit too much if we got quality in return. I would rather give up an extra pick if it meant getting quality in return(even if it means waiting a year before we knew that). Being economical with picks and passing on talent because of it is a sure way to keep going 7-9/8-8 and never getting better.

Not being economical on picks and overreaching for talent that you fall in love with, instead of letting the draft come to you, is a recipe for having 2 playoff appearances in 9 years, and having an almost-bare draft cupboard year after year. I don't have a problem with occassionally trading up to get a player you target, but it should be done sparingly, and you cannot overpay and mortgage future drafts to do it.

Champ was a good Cb, top 3 while he was here? No way.


I agree with you on this one. I always thought that he was a tad overrated. An excellent corner, but not the Hall-Of-Famer to be that everyone talked him up to be. He got burned too many times to deserve that reputation. I would say he was one level below that. However, people in the know in the league talked about him as a top 3 CB, though, and they presumably watch more film than you or I do.

[skinsfan36]

IAgree. I think Duckett is much more suited for this system. I wonder if the FO is considering trading Portis to a team with a high 1st that might need a RB and runs the Denver-type offense (Houston Texans, anyone), and re-sign Duckett to be our workhorse back. I just think he would be a better fit for the offense we prefer to run, and that you need to run in the NFC East. I am not trying to make trouble :rolleyes:, I am just wondering if that is why they shut Portis down, to minimize any concerns about his injuries in the off-season.




.


NO WAY does portis get traded!

[akhhorus]

NO WAY does portis get traded!

Yeah, that concept is beyond ridiculous. Even if the FO wanted to, they couldn't because of his signing bonus. Nor should they, he's become the field general and heart and soul of this team.

[redskin_rich]

I agree with your analysis of these two trades. I remember the Jets were said to have offered their 1 and 3 for Bailey that year, and they picked 14th in the first round (they drafted Vilma). I would have taken that deal and drafted Steven Jackson, who was available then (although you never know if our having that pick instead of NY would have caused the Rams to trade up ahead of us) and who fit the type of offense Gibbs and Bugel ran here the first time much better than Portis did (and does). Portis is an excellent back, and I have a lot of respect for him, but I wonder if, money aside, he regrets not being in a pure zone blocking system of the type he had in Denver, that suited his running style better and allowed him to pile up all that yardage, without taking the same level of punishment.

Agree. I think Duckett is much more suited for this system. I wonder if the FO is considering trading Portis to a team with a high 1st that might need a RB and runs the Denver-type offense (Houston Texans, anyone), and re-sign Duckett to be our workhorse back. I just think he would be a better fit for the offense we prefer to run, and that you need to run in the NFC East. I am not trying to make trouble :rolleyes:, I am just wondering if that is why they shut Portis down, to minimize any concerns about his injuries in the off-season.

Skins7ny- You make some valid arguments on some things but when you make these comments, it is very hard to see anything other than some kind of misguided bias. Portis, in '04 and '05 had more carries, for more yards, at a better average than ANY back that Gibbs has ever had in Washington. Even this year, while being multi injured and in and out of the lineup, was putting up numbers that would stand up to anybody who has played here.
This is not even arguable, look for yourself, among the leading rushers Gibbs has had:

Portis (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/PortCl00.htm)
Byner (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/ByneEa00.htm)
Riggs (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiggGe00.htm)
Bryant (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BryaKe00.htm)
Rogers (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RogeGe00.htm)
Riggins (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiggJo00.htm)

You can say that Portis had better numbers in Denver but that is a moot point. They didn't value him as we did and that argument has nothing to do with your misconception that Portis is not a good fit here, as the numbers clearly show the opposite, when compared to every back Gibbs has had.
Furthermore, Saunders runs a system closer to Denver's in rushing the ball. So, when healthy, Portis should start really cranking out some big time numbers, probably league leading in upcoming years.

[Skins7ny]

Skins7ny- You make some valid arguments on some things but when you make these comments, it is very hard to see anything other than some kind of misguided bias. Portis, in '04 and '05 had more carries, for more yards, at a better average than ANY back that Gibbs has ever had in Washington. Even this year, while being multi injured and in and out of the lineup, was putting up numbers that would stand up to anybody who has played here.
This is not even arguable, look for yourself, among the leading rushers Gibbs has had:

Portis (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/PortCl00.htm)
Byner (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/ByneEa00.htm)
Riggs (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiggGe00.htm)
Bryant (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/BryaKe00.htm)
Rogers (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RogeGe00.htm)
Riggins (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiggJo00.htm)

You can say that Portis had better numbers in Denver but that is a moot point. They didn't value him as we did and that argument has nothing to do with your misconception that Portis is not a good fit here, as the numbers clearly show the opposite, when compared to every back Gibbs has had.
Furthermore, Saunders runs a system closer to Denver's in rushing the ball. So, when healthy, Portis should start really cranking out some big time numbers, probably league leading in upcoming years.


Redskin Rich-I appreaciate the positive and substantive tone of your criticism. You make a stong argument. I certainly don't take anything away from Portis as a RB, he is one of the better ones in the league. I would never question his toughness, talent, competitiveness, or heart. He is a great runner and one of the best blocking tailbacks in the league. I respect him a lot. I know it sounds like I have a bias against him because I have complained (some might even say, "whined") about the trade that brought him here. I have been careful, I think, to point out that my complaint was with our throwing in the 2nd. I think, given the relative difficulty of finding top CBs and the relative ease of finding franchise RBs, Denver should have thrown in the 2nd. However, had the trade been even up Portis for Bailey, I wouldn't have had a big problem with it.

There is no denying Portis' performance or his stats as a Redskin. However, Portis himself has been quoted as saying his style did not suit the offense that Gibbs and Bugel ran when he got here-he talked about it in some detail after the '04 season, and repeated it in a recent Washington Post article. Accusing me of "misguided bias" when all I said was what Portis himself has said, I think that is unfair. Portis came from a zone blocking scheme, and Gibbs/Bugel have admitted that they have changed some of their preferred running plays to suit Portis' strengths as a zone - scheme runner. I am not making that up, they have said it themselves. I think it has contibuted to change the preferred personality of the team from a smash-mouth, grinding offense, to one predicated more on finesse. Finesse makes me think of the 49ers and Bill Walsh, which make me want to throw up.

However, I think that is apples and oranges at this point. The gist of my original speculation, which admittedly I just threw out there and did not elaborate on (I was at work at the time), is this:

Is it at all possible that we would be better off as a whole if we could trade Portis to, say, Houston for their high 1st rounder, use that choice and our own 1st to fill 2 glaring needs (say, BOTH a pass-rushing DE and a cover CB) and make T.J. Duckett our every-down back? Especially (only?) if Saunders leaves and Gibbs takes back the offense? That is what I wanted other members' opinions on. I am just throwing it out there, although I don't want to run afoul of the site rules for starting a new thread.

If Duckett is the heavy-duty, chain-moving back many of us think he is, might that not be an option worth at least considering? Do you not agree that Duckett's style of running is a better fit for the Riggins/Rogers/Riggs model that Gibbs used so well in the 80s? Don't you think that Duckett could get 1,200 yards in a Gibbs/Bugel offense. (All bets are off if Saunders stays, I agree that Portis should be an excellent fit for Saunders' system, but for a number of reasons it didn't happen this year).

After all, while Portis' stats have been excellent, he has taken a lot of punishment over the years, he is not a real big guy (the Post article said that he is actually 5-9, not 5-11) and I suspect his stats on picking up 3rd and 1s and 4th-and 1 (and 2s) is not that impressive. That is one reason why a lot of our drives have stalled. As great as Portis' overall stats have been, where has his 3-year tenure as lead back gotten us? He picked us up and put us on his back in December 05 and took us to the playoffs without any credible passing game. For that he (and the OL) deserve a lot of credit, but every position gets re-evaluated in the offseason. This is a 3-6 team at this point and no one should be untouchable, if it will result in a net benefit to the team.

[schmitty199]

Hmmm Alan Branch number 1 overall pick? That seems a little high to me.

Love the Dallas pick. Im all for shipping that waste of space flozell adams out of town and hopefully drafting levi brown.

Vince Young to Calvin Johnson would be sick.

[akhhorus]

Redskin Rich-I appreaciate the positive and substantive tone of your criticism. You make a stong argument. I certainly don't take anything away from Portis as a RB, he is one of the better ones in the league. I would never question his toughness, talent, competitiveness, or heart. He is a great runner and one of the best blocking tailbacks in the league. I respect him a lot. I know it sounds like I have a bias against him because I have complained (some might even say, "whined") about the trade that brought him here.

Funny that you whine about it, despite you not being here when it was completed. I mean, you won't compliment any trade that happened when you weren't here for that reason.

I have been careful, I think, to point out that my complaint was with our throwing in the 2nd. I think, given the relative difficulty of finding top CBs and the relative ease of finding franchise RBs, Denver should have thrown in the 2nd. However, had the trade been even up Portis for Bailey, I wouldn't have had a big problem with it.

So, because of what you think was an uneven trade, this is justification for thinking about dealing Portis? Why else bring it up? Its completely irrelevant.

There is no denying Portis' performance or his stats as a Redskin. However, Portis himself has been quoted as saying his style did not suit the offense that Gibbs and Bugel ran when he got here-he talked about it in some detail after the '04 season, and repeated it in a recent Washington Post article. Accusing me of "misguided bias" when all I said was what Portis himself has said, I think that is unfair. Portis came from a zone blocking scheme, and Gibbs/Bugel have admitted that they have changed some of their preferred running plays to suit Portis' strengths as a zone - scheme runner. I am not making that up, they have said it themselves. I think it has contibuted to change the preferred personality of the team from a smash-mouth, grinding offense, to one predicated more on finesse. Finesse makes me think of the 49ers and Bill Walsh, which make me want to throw up.

This team hasn't run the old Gibbs power football at all since Gibbs came back. In fact, Gibbs really hasn't run that since Riggins retired, even with Rogers.

However, I think that is apples and oranges at this point. The gist of my original speculation, which admittedly I just threw out there and did not elaborate on (I was at work at the time), is this:

Is it at all possible that we would be better off as a whole if we could trade Portis to, say, Houston for their high 1st rounder, use that choice and our own 1st to fill 2 glaring needs (say, BOTH a pass-rushing DE and a cover CB) and make T.J. Duckett our every-down back? Especially (only?) if Saunders leaves and Gibbs takes back the offense? That is what I wanted other members' opinions on. I am just throwing it out there, although I don't want to run afoul of the site rules for starting a new thread.

Why don't we just deal Moss, Samuels, Griffin, Taylor, Cooley and everyone so we can get more picks. On the face of it, its ridiculous since dealing Portis would be impossible(without his help) because of cap reasons and ridiculous because of what he brings in terms of leadership to this team.

If Duckett is the heavy-duty, chain-moving back many of us think he is, might that not be an option worth at least considering? Do you not agree that Duckett's style of running is a better fit for the Riggins/Rogers/Riggs model that Gibbs used so well in the 80s? Don't you think that Duckett could get 1,200 yards in a Gibbs/Bugel offense. (All bets are off if Saunders stays, I agree that Portis should be an excellent fit for Saunders' system, but for a number of reasons it didn't happen this year).

If Mike Espy could get 1200 yards, why do we need Moss? If Jim Molinaro can play well at LT, why do we need Samuels? Theoretically, you can do this for every starter. Duckett is big, but he's not big, tall and fast like Riggins, Riggs and Rogers were. Byner was smaller than Portis.

After all, while Portis' stats have been excellent, he has taken a lot of punishment over the years, he is not a real big guy (the Post article said that he is actually 5-9, not 5-11) and I suspect his stats on picking up 3rd and 1s and 4th-and 1 (and 2s) is not that impressive. That is one reason why a lot of our drives have stalled. As great as Portis' overall stats have been, where has his 3-year tenure as lead back gotten us? He picked us up and put us on his back in December 05 and took us to the playoffs without any credible passing game. For that he (and the OL) deserve a lot of credit, but every position gets re-evaluated in the offseason. This is a 3-6 team at this point and no one should be untouchable, if it will result in a net benefit to the team.

So, because we're struggling(despite making the playoffs last year almost entirely due to his efforts) with him as Rb-and with him producing on the field, we should seek to replace him? That makes no sense. Its almost as if you're looking for reasons to advocate dealing him when there are a lot of players who deserve blame for why the skins have struggled since Gibbs took over.

[Skins7ny]

Why don't we just deal Moss, Samuels, Griffin, Taylor, Cooley and everyone so we can get more picks. On the face of it, its ridiculous since dealing Portis would be impossible(without his help) because of cap reasons and ridiculous because of what he brings in terms of leadership to this team.

What leadership are you talking about?
Was it leadership when Portis:

(1) whined his way out of Denver because he did not want to live up to the contract he had signed?

(2) criticized Gibbs in his first year with the team, telling everyone that the Browns knew what was coming before each play was snapped.

(3) pointedly and very publicly complained about having to play pre-season games, even before his shoulder injury, and has since said that he shouldn't have to play in any preseason games, thereby placing him above all the rest of his 52 teammates (including others whose injuries would be devastating to the team, such as DT Griffin, CB Springs, OT Samuels, etc.) and subverting the authority of the coaching staff. Almost everyone else in Washington, including Gibbs, now realize that it was a mistake to have the shortest-ever training camp and for Gibbs to have gone so light on the team, yet here is Clinton is bitching that it was TOO physically demanding.

(4) spent his first off-season as a Skin away from the team, working out in Miami away from his teammates, despite having been rescued from Denver and given a 7 year-$56 million contract with a huge signing bonus?

(5) insists on being able to take himself out of games. That really should be the coaches' call. Any time you have different standards for different players, it causes problems in the locker room (or in any other walk of life, for that matter). While you can say that this is Gibbs' decision and he is OK with it, I wouldn't call it leadership on Portis' part. I am with Saundes on this one-although I don't like how Saunders went about it, calling Portis, and by implication Gibbs, out on it in the press).

(6) apparently does not work out much in-season or out. Santana Moss, of all people, made that information public last week, ostensibly while complimenting Clinton on his natural ability. Working out together builds team chemistry, shows selfless dedication to the common cause, and also (not insignificantly) helps condition your body to prevent injuries that cost your team games. What kind of leadership example does not working out with your teammates set for the other 52 guys on the roster?

(7) held himself aloft from his teammates, who are expected to be available to the press on a regular basis, by having a once-per-week press availability on Thursdays. You may not have noticed Ladell Betts making a sarcastic comment about that last Tuesday after he was named the starter when Portis went on I.R. I noticed it, and it tells me that other people on the team notice this behavior and have a problem with it.

OK, I know that I am opening myself up to (irrelevant) charges of being anti-Clinton with these 7 points. I don't consider them a big deal, but they are the truth, and the truth should be pointed out. I honestly am not saying this to dump on Clinton, as I said before, he seems to me to be a good guy, a bit of a diva perhaps, but a good guy. However, for you to throw the leadership thing at me is just laughable, and I have to point out why. You are really off base on this one.

As far as the cap is concerned, Clinton has renegotiated his original contract at least once. You may be right about the implications of trading him, I don't know what the acceleration amount would be if we traded him.

This team hasn't run the old Gibbs power football at all since Gibbs came back. In fact, Gibbs really hasn't run that since Riggins retired, even with Rogers.

That is because Portis is at his best on draws and outside runs and quick hitters. He is not at his best at "power football". I cannot remember Gibbs running a straight draw more than a handful of times in his first go-round. That was always more of a Dallass thing.

If Mike Espy could get 1200 yards, why do we need Moss? If Jim Molinaro can play well at LT, why do we need Samuels? Theoretically, you can do this for every starter. Duckett is big, but he's not big, tall and fast like Riggins, Riggs and Rogers were. Byner was smaller than Portis.

Wrong. Check your facts. The Skins generously list Portis at 205 lbs., but he is acknowledged to be under 200. I checked my 1992 Media Guide, the year after Byner got his SB ring, and he is listed at 218 lbs. Byner was smaller than Riggs and Rogers, but was bigger than Portis.

If Mike Espy could get 1200 yards, why do we need Moss? If Jim Molinaro can play well at LT, why do we need Samuels? Theoretically, you can do this for every starter. Duckett is big, but he's not big, tall and fast like Riggins, Riggs and Rogers were. Byner was smaller than Portis.

If you looked in a crystal ball and told me that Mike Espy would get 1200 yards, you would be an idiot not to keep Moss and start Espy alongside of him. Assuming that you meant for your hypothetical situation to be an either/or proposition, then I would check to see what I could get for Moss. If I was able to secure his value in a trade, I would make it. That way I plug another hole on the team and Espy gets me 1200 yards rather than riding the bench while that other whole remains unplugged. I would hate to trade Moss, because I really like him, but I would consider offers. If I knew that Jim Molinaro could man the LT position at the same level as Samuels, and I could get proper value for Samuels, I would trade Samuels in a heartbeat (especially considering his cap number). The only barrier besides the cap to making those deals, and it is a big one, is what effect these trades would have on team continuity and chemistry. The teams that tend to be successful are the ones that maintain its core of players and turn over the roster at a moderate but firm percentage every year once they reach a certain level of success. Of course, our OL has been together for 4 years now, and it really has not performed to a level that would convince you not to break it up.


So, because we're struggling(despite making the playoffs last year almost entirely due to his efforts) with him as Rb-and with him producing on the field, we should seek to replace him? That makes no sense. Its almost as if you're looking for reasons to advocate dealing him when there are a lot of players who deserve blame for why the skins have struggled since Gibbs took over.

It is not about blame. It is about trying to improve the team. Staying blindly loyal to a player (see Brunell, Mark) negates one of our favorite maxims, to wit: "I don't care what it takes, we're not leaving here without another ring"-Joe Gibbs.

[redskin_rich]

Redskin Rich-I appreaciate the positive and substantive tone of your criticism. You make a stong argument. I certainly don't take anything away from Portis as a RB, he is one of the better ones in the league. I would never question his toughness, talent, competitiveness, or heart. He is a great runner and one of the best blocking tailbacks in the league. I respect him a lot. I know it sounds like I have a bias against him because I have complained (some might even say, "whined") about the trade that brought him here. I have been careful, I think, to point out that my complaint was with our throwing in the 2nd. I think, given the relative difficulty of finding top CBs and the relative ease of finding franchise RBs, Denver should have thrown in the 2nd. However, had the trade been even up Portis for Bailey, I wouldn't have had a big problem with it.

Whining, complaining or any other description that you have been accused of by myself and others, aside, you make well informed critiques that only a die-hard follower or an obsessed hater, could make. I'm pretty sure that you are the former. :)
I don't have much disagreement with most of your last post, not enough to debate or contend, so I only left what I quoted above about the Champ/Portis trade. Champ was a free agent that was not going to return. Portis was under a meager contract with Denver and asking for a raise. My contention is that we traded a 2nd and exclusive rights to Champ, for Portis. We had no leverage, Champ was an UFA that we slapped with the franchise tag. If we had dug our heels in the sand and kept Champ, he would most likely have been a holdout that would have crippled our cap. Portis, on the other hand, was under contract. His contract was small enough that Denver could have easily told him to show up or sit out.
I think it was a good deal, since Champ was gone either way and Portis is easily worth a 2nd round pick.

[Skins7ny]

Whining, complaining or any other description that you have been accused of by myself and others, aside, you make well informed critiques that only a die-hard follower or an obsessed hater, could make. I'm pretty sure that you are the former. :)
I don't have much disagreement with most of your last post, not enough to debate or contend, so I only left what I quoted above about the Champ/Portis trade. Champ was a free agent that was not going to return. Portis was under a meager contract with Denver and asking for a raise. My contention is that we traded a 2nd and exclusive rights to Champ, for Portis. We had no leverage, Champ was an UFA that we slapped with the franchise tag. If we had dug our heels in the sand and kept Champ, he would most likely have been a holdout that would have crippled our cap. Portis, on the other hand, was under contract. His contract was small enough that Denver could have easily told him to show up or sit out.
I think it was a good deal, since Champ was gone either way and Portis is easily worth a 2nd round pick.

Thank you for the kind words, I truly do appreciate them. I know I often come across as being very negative, but I hope you and anyone else on the board who reads my posts understand that I have been a die-hard Skins fan since I was 7, and Billy Kilmer was my favorite player. It was not easy being a Skins fan growing up in NY, with an older brother who is a Cowboys fan!
I promise you I enjoyed the glory years to the fullest, and never complained about anything (except maybe a lack of recognition of our greatness by Pro Bowl voters and members of the football media). Someday in the near future, I hope all of us in Redskins Nation can spend all of our football time just basking in the glow of a winning team!

As far as Champ is concerned, yes we were going to lose him, but other teams franchise their players and get something for him. We franchised DT Sean Gilbert and got 2 #1s for him, which ironically, we parlayed into the pick we used to draft Champ. The Jets got a #1 for Abraham although it was clear he was not going to return. The Packers got a #2 for Javon Walker, and he didn't just burn his bridges in Green Bay, he napalmed them. He also was coming off a serious knee injury. There are several other examples. So I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Interestingly, the Skins made a play in free agency for Thomas Jones, and were outbid by Chicago for his services prior to making the Champ/Clinton deal. I presume that if they had landed him, Gibbs would not have gone after Portis. I wonder how things would have been different had Jones chosen us over Chicago. It is pretty rare, it seems that Joe, Dan and Vinny don't get the guy they want in free agency.

BTW, I am really excited about seeing Campbell play tomorrow. I think this is going to be the start or our franchise turnaround. Having a good young QB is a big confidence boost for the team , the FO, and of course us fans, and I think that Campbell is going to throw a couple of TDs and we are going to win easily tomorrow.

[akhhorus]

What leadership are you talking about?
Was it leadership when Portis:

(1) whined his way out of Denver because he did not want to live up to the contract he had signed?

(2) criticized Gibbs in his first year with the team, telling everyone that the Browns knew what was coming before each play was snapped.

(3) pointedly and very publicly complained about having to play pre-season games, even before his shoulder injury, and has since said that he shouldn't have to play in any preseason games, thereby placing him above all the rest of his 52 teammates (including others whose injuries would be devastating to the team, such as DT Griffin, CB Springs, OT Samuels, etc.) and subverting the authority of the coaching staff. Almost everyone else in Washington, including Gibbs, now realize that it was a mistake to have the shortest-ever training camp and for Gibbs to have gone so light on the team, yet here is Clinton is bitching that it was TOO physically demanding.

(4) spent his first off-season as a Skin away from the team, working out in Miami away from his teammates, despite having been rescued from Denver and given a 7 year-$56 million contract with a huge signing bonus?

(5) insists on being able to take himself out of games. That really should be the coaches' call. Any time you have different standards for different players, it causes problems in the locker room (or in any other walk of life, for that matter). While you can say that this is Gibbs' decision and he is OK with it, I wouldn't call it leadership on Portis' part. I am with Saundes on this one-although I don't like how Saunders went about it, calling Portis, and by implication Gibbs, out on it in the press).

(6) apparently does not work out much in-season or out. Santana Moss, of all people, made that information public last week, ostensibly while complimenting Clinton on his natural ability. Working out together builds team chemistry, shows selfless dedication to the common cause, and also (not insignificantly) helps condition your body to prevent injuries that cost your team games. What kind of leadership example does not working out with your teammates set for the other 52 guys on the roster?

(7) held himself aloft from his teammates, who are expected to be available to the press on a regular basis, by having a once-per-week press availability on Thursdays. You may not have noticed Ladell Betts making a sarcastic comment about that last Tuesday after he was named the starter when Portis went on I.R. I noticed it, and it tells me that other people on the team notice this behavior and have a problem with it.

Nothing you point out here is anything close to being a malcontent:

1-He didn't whine. He asked for a new contract. Considering he was vastly outperforming his rookie deal, there's nothing wrong with that.

2-Technically correct, but he complained in the right way(lavar is an example of the wrong way).

3-I chalk that up to frustration. He didn't put himself above his teammates, as you state. You're just looking for reasons to criticize Portis now.

4-So did Moss(so does every U player). Where's your criticism of him/them?

5-And? Every player has that right to do that. I don't understand your problem with this unless you're-again-just looking for things to complain about.

6-Not true. He among the most fanatical offseason workers.

7-And he started including his teammates in those press conferences. Gibbs encourages them. But, I guess you know more than Gibbs

OK, I know that I am opening myself up to (irrelevant) charges of being anti-Clinton with these 7 points. I don't consider them a big deal, but they are the truth, and the truth should be pointed out. I honestly am not saying this to dump on Clinton, as I said before, he seems to me to be a good guy, a bit of a diva perhaps, but a good guy. However, for you to throw the leadership thing at me is just laughable, and I have to point out why. You are really off base on this one.

LMAO, pot calling the kettle black here. What truth btw? All you are doing is whining(shocker) again about some impossible situation. Considering how you end this post, you really open yourself up to questioning.

As far as the cap is concerned, Clinton has renegotiated his original contract at least once. You may be right about the implications of trading him, I don't know what the acceleration amount would be if we traded him.

We had a renegotiation worked out, but then didn't need it. He's still on his original deal with us. Cutting him would cost over 12 million.

That is because Portis is at his best on draws and outside runs and quick hitters. He is not at his best at "power football". I cannot remember Gibbs running a straight draw more than a handful of times in his first go-round. That was always more of a Dallass thing.

Okay, you actually don't watch the games. Portis is great on the outside runs, but he ground out the yards between the tackles last year. Saunders runs a lot of outside runs, but all last year was OT runs.

Wrong. Check your facts. The Skins generously list Portis at 205 lbs., but he is acknowledged to be under 200. I checked my 1992 Media Guide, the year after Byner got his SB ring, and he is listed at 218 lbs. Byner was smaller than Riggs and Rogers, but was bigger than Portis.

Byner is listed at 5-10 215 according to PFR, Portis is listed at 5-11 212 by NFL.com. So, we're both wrong and right. The point is that Gibbs has had a RB be very successful at a "small" size". And that Duckett is not the prototypical Gibbs power back.

If you looked in a crystal ball and told me that Mike Espy would get 1200 yards, you would be an idiot not to keep Moss and start Espy alongside of him.

And how exactly is this different than what you're doing with Portis and Duckett? Man, are you becoming predictable.

Assuming that you meant for your hypothetical situation to be an either/or proposition, then I would check to see what I could get for Moss. If I was able to secure his value in a trade, I would make it. That way I plug another hole on the team and Espy gets me 1200 yards rather than riding the bench while that other whole remains unplugged. I would hate to trade Moss, because I really like him, but I would consider offers. If I knew that Jim Molinaro could man the LT position at the same level as Samuels, and I could get proper value for Samuels, I would trade Samuels in a heartbeat (especially considering his cap number). The only barrier besides the cap to making those deals, and it is a big one, is what effect these trades would have on team continuity and chemistry. The teams that tend to be successful are the ones that maintain its core of players and turn over the roster at a moderate but firm percentage every year once they reach a certain level of success. Of course, our OL has been together for 4 years now, and it really has not performed to a level that would convince you not to break it up.

*yawn* Earth to someone who didn't get it.

It is not about blame. It is about trying to improve the team. Staying blindly loyal to a player (see Brunell, Mark) negates one of our favorite maxims, to wit: "I don't care what it takes, we're not leaving here without another ring"-Joe Gibbs.

So, how exactly does this relate to Portis. He produces on the field. How does dumping him make this team better by going out into the unknown? Until you answer that, why should anyone take you seriously(frankly, why should anyone take you seriously anyways)?

[akhhorus]

Thank you for the kind words, I truly do appreciate them. I know I often come across as being very negative

Acceptance is the first step.

but I hope you and anyone else on the board who reads my posts understand that I have been a die-hard Skins fan since I was 7, and Billy Kilmer was my favorite player. It was not easy being a Skins fan growing up in NY, with an older brother who is a Cowboys fan!
I promise you I enjoyed the glory years to the fullest, and never complained about anything (except maybe a lack of recognition of our greatness by Pro Bowl voters and members of the football media). Someday in the near future, I hope all of us in Redskins Nation can spend all of our football time just basking in the glow of a winning team!

Maybe if you spend some time pointing out what you agreed with, I(and others) wouldn't have trouble believing you here. I have no doubt you're a Skins fan, but you come across as a grumpy malcontent who is never happy no matter what.

As far as Champ is concerned, yes we were going to lose him, but other teams franchise their players and get something for him. We franchised DT Sean Gilbert and got 2 #1s for him, which ironically, we parlayed into the pick we used to draft Champ. The Jets got a #1 for Abraham although it was clear he was not going to return. The Packers got a #2 for Javon Walker, and he didn't just burn his bridges in Green Bay, he napalmed them. He also was coming off a serious knee injury. There are several other examples. So I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Much different situations. Gilbert was arguably the stupidest trade ever in the NFL. Abraham was going to walk no matter what and the Jets couldn't afford to keep Franchising him(it is the Top salary average+1 million for each additional year you franchise the player). Atlanta made, frankly, a stupid deal for him. He's been effective when he's played, but he's never healthy. Walker was dealt to a team desperate for WR help, a 2nd was a good deal for the Pack, but thats could be a big nothing for them if the pick doesn't work out.

Interestingly, the Skins made a play in free agency for Thomas Jones, and were outbid by Chicago for his services prior to making the Champ/Clinton deal. I presume that if they had landed him, Gibbs would not have gone after Portis. I wonder how things would have been different had Jones chosen us over Chicago.

I have never heard that. There were all sorts of rumors that offseason and that was one I never heard. Do you have a link?

It is pretty rare, it seems that Joe, Dan and Vinny don't get the guy they want in free agency.

I don't believe the hype. I think a lot of agents wave the Snyder card to force bigger deals.

[redskin_rich]

Thank you for the kind words, I truly do appreciate them. I know I often come across as being very negative, but I hope you and anyone else on the board who reads my posts understand that I have been a die-hard Skins fan since I was 7, and Billy Kilmer was my favorite player. It was not easy being a Skins fan growing up in NY, with an older brother who is a Cowboys fan!
I promise you I enjoyed the glory years to the fullest, and never complained about anything (except maybe a lack of recognition of our greatness by Pro Bowl voters and members of the football media). Someday in the near future, I hope all of us in Redskins Nation can spend all of our football time just basking in the glow of a winning team!

As far as Champ is concerned, yes we were going to lose him, but other teams franchise their players and get something for him. We franchised DT Sean Gilbert and got 2 #1s for him, which ironically, we parlayed into the pick we used to draft Champ. The Jets got a #1 for Abraham although it was clear he was not going to return. The Packers got a #2 for Javon Walker, and he didn't just burn his bridges in Green Bay, he napalmed them. He also was coming off a serious knee injury. There are several other examples. So I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Interestingly, the Skins made a play in free agency for Thomas Jones, and were outbid by Chicago for his services prior to making the Champ/Clinton deal. I presume that if they had landed him, Gibbs would not have gone after Portis. I wonder how things would have been different had Jones chosen us over Chicago. It is pretty rare, it seems that Joe, Dan and Vinny don't get the guy they want in free agency.

BTW, I am really excited about seeing Campbell play tomorrow. I think this is going to be the start or our franchise turnaround. Having a good young QB is a big confidence boost for the team , the FO, and of course us fans, and I think that Campbell is going to throw a couple of TDs and we are going to win easily tomorrow.
No problem. I tend to be over optimistic, while some tend to be overly cynical but we all want the same thing. It's not hard to tell the true fans from the bandwagoners, fairweatherners or my favorite (:rolleyes: ), the unattached, heartless low-lifes that take pleasure in the failures of the team.
I can be very negative and I have had my share of whining and complaining. Just look back to the last two draft threads, to see. I didn't like the Carlos pick, I wanted MW and I didn't like the Campbell pick at first. This past draft, I think I was the biggest complainer about the trade up for Rocky. I also was an anti-Brunell pro-Ramsey supporter. Glad to see I was wrong about that.

I never have heard a thing about this Thomas Jones rumor you bring up but Jones is nowhere close to the talent that Portis is.
The Gilbert trade was a steal but don't forget that we let him sit for a year before that happened.
The Jets got the 29th pick in the 1st round for Abe. It was a 3-way deal with Atlanta and Denver. Here are the details:
http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/article.jsp?id=11429
Anyway, the Jets were asking for two 1st round picks. As it was, the Jets got their starting Center [Nick Mangold] for Abe. Was it worth it?
With Javon Walker, again, Green Bay had him under contract and could have let him sit. A 2nd for him was not equal value.

Lastly, I am equally excited about Jason Campbell and I hope this is a new beginning for us. Can you imagine the same QB for 10 years? Wow, that would be something. I think we all are hopeful that this is the beginning of a long era with Campbell leading our team.
Hail!!!

[Skins7ny]

No problem. I tend to be over optimistic, while some tend to be overly cynical but we all want the same thing. It's not hard to tell the true fans from the bandwagoners, fairweatherners or my favorite (:rolleyes: ), the unattached, heartless low-lifes that take pleasure in the failures of the team.
I can be very negative and I have had my share of whining and complaining. Just look back to the last two draft threads, to see. I didn't like the Carlos pick, I wanted MW and I didn't like the Campbell pick at first. This past draft, I think I was the biggest complainer about the trade up for Rocky. I also was an anti-Brunell pro-Ramsey supporter. Glad to see I was wrong about that.

I never have heard a thing about this Thomas Jones rumor you bring up but Jones is nowhere close to the talent that Portis is.
The Gilbert trade was a steal but don't forget that we let him sit for a year before that happened.
The Jets got the 29th pick in the 1st round for Abe. It was a 3-way deal with Atlanta and Denver. Here are the details:
http://www.atlantafalcons.com/team/article.jsp?id=11429
Anyway, the Jets were asking for two 1st round picks. As it was, the Jets got their starting Center [Nick Mangold] for Abe. Was it worth it?
With Javon Walker, again, Green Bay had him under contract and could have let him sit. A 2nd for him was not equal value.

Lastly, I am equally excited about Jason Campbell and I hope this is a new beginning for us. Can you imagine the same QB for 10 years? Wow, that would be something. I think we all are hopeful that this is the beginning of a long era with Campbell leading our team.
Hail!!!

Again, excellent points made about the franchise tag. I will try to see if I can find some link to the Thomas Jones thing. I remember it very clearly, but it was several years ago, and I don't remember the source. It was either the Post, the Times, or possibly, PFW, which I have been subscribing to for more than 20 years.

If there has been one thing that has been the most frustrating in my 34 years as a Redskins fan, it is our seeming inability to develop a franchise QB. Other teams have a young guy who they develop and who is their guy for 10, 15 years. We tried and failed with Schroeder, Rypien, Conklin, Humphries, Shuler/Frerotte and Ramsey. Rypien was the only one with any level of sustained success, and that was only a couple of years. The one time we succeeded was with Trent Green, who we lost due to the ownership transition.

I am going to get some sleep so I can be wide awake for the dawning of the new era tomorrow. While I am very optimistic that Campbell will be an immediate winner, I hope that Skins fans everywhere show him the patience necessary to allow him to develop into his position (if needed).

Here's to you and all the other Skins fans out there (even you, Akh), and here's to a great day tomorrow! :)

[Skins7ny]

Looking this over again, I forgot that Walker was still under contract.
And Theismann was a young QB that we developed, and the last guy to really grab hold of the position and not let it go.

[ph33rtheD]

well if we decide not to trade or anything. I believe the best bet would be Gaines Adams. I know he isnt good against the run but his pass rush ability will help in three areas...pass rush (obviously), turnovers (better pass rush = sack fumbles rushed passes, ints...) and coverage (pass rush makes coverage easier for DBs) now im not comparing Adams to Dwight freeny but Freeny wasnt too hot against the run when he first entered the league but he has steadily gotten better i think Gaines will take the same path.

[akhhorus]

well if we decide not to trade down or anything. I believe the best bet would be Gaines Adams. I know he isnt good against the run but his pass rush ability will help in three areas...pass rush (obviously), turnovers (better pass rush = sack fumbles rushed passes, ints...) and coverage (pass rush makes coverage easier for DBs) now im not comparing Adams to Dwight freeny but Freeny wasnt too hot against the run when he first entered the league but he has steadily gotten better i think Gaines will take the same path.

I wouldn't complain if we got Adams with a trade down, but I would rather have Moses. Better against the run. And I was really impressed with Lawrence Jackson last night.

[ph33rtheD]

I wouldn't complain if we got Adams with a trade down, but I would rather have Moses. Better against the run. And I was really impressed with Lawrence Jackson last night.

I agree but it depends on where we pick. If we have a top 5 pick then yea definatley trade down but if we have a pick around 8 or so then i think trading down would be too risky..especially if moses gets picked first.