How much of this mess is on Gibbs? [Archive]

View Full Version : How much of this mess is on Gibbs?

Redskinmayhem

10-29-2009, 03:35 PM

Before you guys label me a "heretic", know that I am a huge Joe Gibbs fan, not just as a coach but as a man as well. I have the utmost respect for him in every aspect.

Now, on to the business at hand - How much of this mess can be blamed squarely on Gibbs' shoulders? I was listening to 980 the other day and I don't remember which one of the talking heads, Czaban/Polin/Sheehan made the point but Gibbs may have played a major role in leaving us in the state we're in. when I say "the state" I mean a roster full of old, over-priced & under-performing players and very few draft picks with which to rebuild this team.

They mentioned the habit that Gibbs had for giving away draft pics - I'll be "para-phrasing" so I'm sure some of you stat guru's will correct the numbers below. These are the players acquired and the picks given (not necessarily in the same year) up for that player (just going by memory here):

Brunnell - 3rd
Jason Campbell - 1st/3rd
TJ Duckett - 3rd
Brandon Lloyd - 3rd and a 4th
Cooley- was it a 2nd or a 3rd in the following years draft?
CP - 2nd rd pick in the next years draft (again, correct me, my memory is failing lol).

I'm sure there's more than that but just off memory, that's a lot of picks to toss away. Granted some of those were for players that made a difference but still, it's an overall statement of this teams culture that we toss away picks as if they're worthless.

I guess the question becomes who's decisions were they...

I don't know how I feel about the point that was being made about the lost picks but the numbers don't lie.

As Akh says, Guff on!!! Let the hate begin! lol. :spy:

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 03:44 PM

hail2skins

10-29-2009, 03:45 PM

Redskinmayhem

10-29-2009, 03:46 PM

Redskinmayhem

10-29-2009, 03:47 PM

shally

10-29-2009, 03:48 PM

Gibbs made some questionable moves(especially giving Gregg Williams basic autonomy running the defense), but compared to how Snyderatto have done without adult supervision, his moves generally look pretty good. Trading away 2 2nds(basically) for Cooley and Portis still looks like steals.

+1

i also think that Gibbs put Snyder at a disadvantage by not letting him know he planned to resign until very late..i seriously doubt that we would have ended up with Zorn had Gibbs told Snyder he was leaving halfway through the season

that does not relieve Snyderrato of their collective responsibility, but those clowns need every edge they can get

shally

10-29-2009, 03:50 PM

The giving away of draft picks started before Gibbs came back. That's not on him. Gibbs bought into Snyder's crap and like I heard mentioned on the radio the other day, Gibbs played Snyder like a fiddle.

actually, Gibbs traded away a lot of draft picks in his first tenure here.. he made the disastrous move to trade up to get that midget receiver out of michigan (Carter) who never produced for us (but did for green bay as a returner)

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 03:51 PM

True. Refresh my memory on how the CP deal went down? Was Champ a RFA that just needed a new contract?

Champ was a franchise player who was tagged, and he said in no uncertain terms that he was not going to resign with the skins.

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 03:53 PM

NCskinsfanatic

10-29-2009, 03:53 PM

NCskinsfanatic

10-29-2009, 03:55 PM

Dont forget we traded up for Rocky despite his bum knees too.

Sweepea436

10-29-2009, 03:55 PM

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 04:05 PM

Dont forget we traded up for Rocky despite his bum knees too.

The only thing I can retrospectively criticize on that pick was that we didn't take Thomas Howard with that pick. Rocky, knees and all, was still a polished prospect who could play multiple LB positions and he's been a servicable starting OLB for the skins.

Fathead

10-29-2009, 04:09 PM

Wait, what? Gibbs left a playoff roster. Its not his fault that through 2 drafts Snyderatto has either wasted the picks or Blache has totally mismanaged them. Its not his fault that Zorn has 0 sense of how to install an offense. Its not his fault that Snyderatto didn't bother to address the gaping holes in the offensive line depth. Its not his fault that they didn't bother to address the QB situation.

Gibbs was not that great in his second tenure but he's not responsible for this mess.

oldskinfan

10-29-2009, 04:30 PM

If Gibbs is to blame for anything, it's emboldening Snyderrato to think his blessing or acceptance of their personnel moves makes them all good football decisions.

Gibbs is a HOF coach, but as pseudo-GM and talent evaluator, he has been mediocre at best.

I think we won 3 Super Bowls because of Gibbs AND Bobby Beathard... if only Snyder would realize that, and that Cerrato couldn't sniff Beathard's jock.

NCskinsfanatic

10-29-2009, 04:32 PM

The only thing I can retrospectively criticize on that pick was that we didn't take Thomas Howard with that pick. Rocky, knees and all, was still a polished prospect who could play multiple LB positions and he's been a servicable starting OLB for the skins.

True, but he hasnt quite been the impact player he was characterized to be when we moved up for him and he's not as good as Howard imo, but you're right certainly wasnt the worst move we've made involving multiple picks.

shally

10-29-2009, 04:37 PM

Desmond Howard.

my bad.. thanks.. i always got him confused with anthony carter, who WAS productive..

man !! it's b**** to get old ...lol

thanks to everyone else who fixed my faulty memory syndrome..lol

shally

10-29-2009, 04:39 PM

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 04:43 PM

True, but he hasnt quite been the impact player he was characterized to be when we moved up for him and he's not as good as Howard imo, but you're right certainly wasnt the worst move we've made involving multiple picks.

Okay, quick player comparison(all taken from the same draft):
Player 1 (http://www.nfl.com/players/a.j.hawk/profile?id=HAW076822): 53 starts, 252 solo tackles, 7.5 sacks, 11 Pds, 3 Int, 2 Forced fumbles
Player 2 (http://www.nfl.com/players/erniesims/profile?id=SIM696501): 51 starts, 258 solo tackles, 2.5 sacks, 4 Pds, 1 Int, 4 forced fumbles
Player 3 (http://www.nfl.com/players/rockymcintosh/profile?id=MCI506148): 37 starts, 180 solo tackles, 5 sacks, 12 Pds, 1 Int, 7 forced fumbles

Rocky's not a great player, but he's actually really solid starter.

colkurtz

10-29-2009, 04:50 PM

My only thought is that Gibbs could have insisted that Snyder get a real GM. However, I think Gibbs liked being able to make the personnel decisions himself, with just a little input from the Boy General.

I still think that Snyder and Cerrato figured after they had both worked with Gibbs for a few years that they were NFL-ready to be a GM. Which is why he kept a bunch of coaches before hiring the HC [Zorn].

shally

10-29-2009, 04:50 PM

Okay, quick player comparison(all taken from the same draft):
Player 1 (http://www.nfl.com/players/a.j.hawk/profile?id=HAW076822): 53 starts, 252 solo tackles, 7.5 sacks, 11 Pds, 3 Int, 2 Forced fumbles
Player 2 (http://www.nfl.com/players/erniesims/profile?id=SIM696501): 51 starts, 258 solo tackles, 2.5 sacks, 4 Pds, 1 Int, 4 forced fumbles
Player 3 (http://www.nfl.com/players/rockymcintosh/profile?id=MCI506148): 37 starts, 180 solo tackles, 5 sacks, 12 Pds, 1 Int, 7 forced fumbles

Rocky's not a great player, but he's actually really solid starter.

how about howard, ryans, or d'q jackson ?

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 04:58 PM

how about howard, ryans, or d'q jackson ?

I didn't include Jackson or Ryans since they're ILB/MLB, but for the sake of arguing....

Howard: 54 starts, 286 solo tackles, 4 sacks, 18 PDs, 7 Ints, 2 forced fumbles
Jackson: 48 starts, 276 solo tackles, 3 sacks, 11 PDs, 4 Ints, 1 forced fumble
Ryans: 55 starts, 346 solo tackles, 6.5 sacks, 17 PDs, 2 Ints, 5 forced fumbles

44 goes 50 gut

10-29-2009, 05:00 PM

The only thing I found wrong with Gibbs 2nd time around was that he gave up on his own style of offense too quickly. He made the playoffs with it and then due to the playoff loss and blaming himself for it, he started hiring coaches to take over things he felt he wasn't good enough at.

Gibbs was too humble for his own good the second time, he was never a good personnel guy, and expecting him to be and not hiring a GM was just another mistake by Snyder.

Goskins11

10-29-2009, 07:53 PM

none of it. it's all on vinny and danny.

Keino

10-29-2009, 08:22 PM

I agree. None of it is on Gibbs IMO. The real trouble with this team is that we had 5 picks in the 1st 3 rounds in 2008 and have gotten literally no return on them. On most teams, that's 2 starters and 3 contributors at a minimum.

The failure to address the offensive line the last 2 years has nothing to do with Gibbs.

Redskin4Life

10-29-2009, 08:33 PM

FunBunch5

10-29-2009, 08:55 PM

my bad.. thanks.. i always got him confused with anthony carter, who WAS productive..

man !! it's b**** to get old ...lol

thanks to everyone else who fixed my faulty memory syndrome..lol

I thought you were talking about Tom Carter, who I believe we got in the same draft. He was a CB that we got in the later rounds. Maybe it wasn't the same draft but it was somewhere around then.

I think the only thing we can really put on Gibbs is he left when he said he would stay for the full 5 years.

Oregonian

10-29-2009, 09:08 PM

Gibbs drafted Campbell and anointed him the QB of the future.

In my opinion, this was the single most damaging move he made. And it is hurting us big time.

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 09:22 PM

Gibbs drafted Campbell and anointed him the QB of the future.

In my opinion, this was the single most damaging move he made. And it is hurting us big time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zorn/Cerrato/Snyder had the power to replace or supplement any player they didn't think was competent to do the job required of them, right?

And really? Drafting Campbell was more damaging than neglecting both lines in the draft for 4 years? Really?

WarEagle

10-29-2009, 09:26 PM

Gibbs drafted Campbell and anointed him the QB of the future.

In my opinion, this was the single most damaging move he made. And it is hurting us big time.

All things being equal, JC's arrival didn't put us here I don't think. Joe's biggest sin was that he was just too aged and mellow on his second go here. Hardly his fault.

Fathead

10-29-2009, 09:26 PM

Lots of coaches strike out on QBs. Zorn and Snyderatto were the ones who stuck with JC.

Oregonian

10-29-2009, 09:35 PM

And really? Drafting Campbell was more damaging than neglecting both lines in the draft for 4 years? Really?

Really and truly.

Drafting a QB in the first round and waiting 5 years to finally determine that he will never be an adequate starting QB, while giving him over 40 starts in the meantime, was massively damaging.

Similar to how drafting Harrington hurt the Lions and how drafting Carr hurt the Texans, to name a few of the most recent examples of how drafting a first round QB flop can damage a franchise for years.

redskin_rich

10-29-2009, 09:40 PM

Gibbs drafted Campbell and anointed him the QB of the future.

In my opinion, this was the single most damaging move he made. And it is hurting us big time.

I have been one of JC's harshest critics of late but I totally disagree that drafting him and treating him as the QB of the future, is anywhere near the most damaging move.
Not properly addressing an aging O-Line, changing systems and doing so with an unknown quantity, then putting that unknown into the role of top banana. Giving that top banana no authority over the coaching staff and further chopping his legs by overruling his authority on the players.

I could go on and on.

Gibbs, who had the utmost authority, tried to work in this structure. He failed, in comparison to the elite standard he had set before.
If Gibbs is to blame at all, it is that he didn't set Danny straight but that is not in Gibbs nature and Gibbs did his best to show Danny the way.

Gibbs, besides being a great coach, will always take any blame onto himself. You will not encounter a more humble man that has achieved so much, I promise.

Appreciate that Gibbs got us 2 playoff appearances from a management that has spent more money and won less than any other, on their own.

Fathead

10-29-2009, 09:43 PM

Really and truly.

Drafting a QB in the first round and waiting 5 years to finally determine that he will never be an adequate starting QB, while giving him over 40 starts in the meantime, was massively damaging.

Similar to how drafting Harrington hurt the Lions and how drafting Carr hurt the Texans, to name a few of the most recent examples of how drafting a first round QB flop can damage a franchise for years.

Gibbs gave him 40 starts? I think Gibbs gave him less than 20.

Redskinmayhem

10-29-2009, 09:43 PM

Lots of coaches strike out on QBs. Zorn and Snyderatto were the ones who stuck with JC.

problem is, we all bought the "JC has had 5 OC's in 5 years" excuse. We kept giving him more time, more starts, etc. Then it was the lack of an O-line...we all kept making excuses.

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 09:43 PM

Really and truly.

Drafting a QB in the first round and waiting 5 years to finally determine that he will never be an adequate starting QB, while giving him over 40 starts in the meantime, was massively damaging.

And if Vinny/Zorn/Snyder thought that Gibbs was way off the reservation regarding Campbell, they've had ample opportunity to replace him--even beyond surrendering multiple picks for Sanchez and Cutler(and frankly, thank Bob we didn't do either of those moves, Cutler is a turnover machine and Pete Carroll was 100% right about Sanchez).

Similar to how drafting Harrington hurt the Lions and how drafting Carr hurt the Texans, to name a few of the most recent examples of how drafting a first round QB flop can damage a franchise for years.

I can make the case that those franchises' failures to surround them with adequate talent was the main cause for their failures. Especially Carr and his Oline(I think Carr holds the NFL record for most times sacked in a season), but Harrington's supporting cast was comical outside of Roy Williams. The QBs who can thrive without much help are very few and far between.

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 09:45 PM

problem is, we all bought the "JC has had 5 OC's in 5 years" excuse. We kept giving him more time, more starts, etc. Then it was the lack of an O-line...we all kept making excuses.

So, when we replace him with Sam Bradford or whomever, do you think if you put that guy in the same situation Campbell has now he'll be able to magically fix the problems with the offense?

Fathead

10-29-2009, 09:46 PM

No QB can succeed as the Redskins are currently built and run. That's not an excuse for JC because he's screwing up the few chances he gets, but no one would be great with the current situation.

Redskinmayhem

10-29-2009, 09:51 PM

So, when we replace him with Sam Bradford or whomever, do you think if you put that guy in the same situation Campbell has now he'll be able to magically fix the problems with the offense?

No. I'm not advocating we draft a QB in the first round next year. I think we should draft a couple of o-lineman, a D lineman, maybe a RB. build the foundation w/ the lines. Then maybe find an adequate vet a la Jeff Garcia to lead the team until we've built a solid O-line.

akhhorus

10-29-2009, 09:55 PM

No QB can succeed as the Redskins are currently built and run. That's not an excuse for JC because he's screwing up the few chances he gets, but no one would be great with the current situation.

Amen.

No. I'm not advocating we draft a QB in the first round next year. I think we should draft a couple of o-lineman, a D lineman, maybe a RB. build the foundation w/ the lines. Then maybe find an adequate vet a la Jeff Garcia to lead the team until we've built a solid O-line.

I don't think you can say that criticizing the oline is excuse making for Campbell then turn around and say that the skins need to draft a couple Olinemen.

And not to nitpick, but the concept of drafting Dlinemen after signing Fat Albert and drafting Orakpo/Jarmon or drafting a Rb while Portis is still on pace for a 1200 yard season despite the oline issues aren't sound ones.

colkurtz

10-29-2009, 09:57 PM

Really and truly.

Drafting a QB in the first round and waiting 5 years to finally determine that he will never be an adequate starting QB, while giving him over 40 starts in the meantime, was massively damaging.

Similar to how drafting Harrington hurt the Lions and how drafting Carr hurt the Texans, to name a few of the most recent examples of how drafting a first round QB flop can damage a franchise for years.

I also have been a harsh and lately harsher critic of JC. He is a QB that shows flashes of brilliance, but just couldn't produce in the long-term.

Snyder has used Cerrato as a cover for his personnel decisions over many years. Snyderrato have been the effective GMs of the team for years. Snyder and Cerrato used far too many draft choices on performance positions versus the OL and DL. Snyder has continued to go for big, flashy and expensive FA [from 1999 until today] rather than spreading out his money on the lines. Snyder and Cerrato have a poor record of draft picks and in general. Even Gibbs II could not overcome this dearth of talent.

redskin_rich

10-29-2009, 10:07 PM

Patrick

10-29-2009, 10:26 PM

Amen.

I don't think you can say that criticizing the oline is excuse making for Campbell then turn around and say that the skins need to draft a couple Olinemen.

And not to nitpick, but the concept of drafting Dlinemen after signing Fat Albert and drafting Orakpo/Jarmon or drafting a Rb while Portis is still on pace for a 1200 yard season despite the oline issues aren't sound ones.
Well technically they've already picked a DL in the 2010 draft with Jarmon. But agree the remaining picks should focus on OL and maybe a PR/KR. Problem is that the 2010 OL prospects are not as deep and talented as the past couple of years. The OL is going to take a couple of years (draft wise) or will have to be seeded with solid FA (not superstars either).

colkurtz

10-29-2009, 10:49 PM

How does JC measure up to all the other QB's brought in, drafted or FA, under Snyderatto? Brunell and Collins don't count, since that was a Gibbs move. Don't count Kent Graham, Tony Banks or Sage Rosenfels either, as they were chosen under Marty's direction.

I got Jeff George, Patrick Ramsey, Shane Matthews, Danny Wuerful, Timm Hasselbeck, Gibran Hamdan, Rob Johnson, Colt Brennan.

The thing I'm most upset about is that we had Chase Daniels this season, who had a pretty good PS (admittedly against the 3rd and fourth string). We're going to have to watch JC - who just doesn't have the talent to win consistently in the NFL (especially with this OL). Snyderrato has put Zorn in a position to play JC until the bitter end. Just another case of Snyder's poor personnel decisions and meddling with the team to the detriment of the HC.

redskin_rich

10-29-2009, 10:51 PM

Well technically they've already picked a DL in the 2010 draft with Jarmon. But agree the remaining picks should focus on OL and maybe a PR/KR. Problem is that the 2010 OL prospects are not as deep and talented as the past couple of years. The OL is going to take a couple of years (draft wise) or will have to be seeded with solid FA (not superstars either).
We also need 2 RB's, 2 QB's, 2 LB's and a CB. One of each of these positions needs to be starting caliber.

We need a major rebuild, no ifs or buts about it. We have too many needs to even consider any quick fixes.

hail2skins

10-29-2009, 11:33 PM

redskin_rich

10-30-2009, 12:53 AM

Brunell for a 3rd
CP for Champ Bailey and a 2nd
Jason Campbell for a 1st, 3rd, 4th
TJ Duckett for a 3rd and 4th
Brandon Lloyd for a 3rd and 4th
Cooley for a 2nd
Rocky for a 2nd
Kendall for a 4th

That's all that I can remember....
Though this list is not entirely accurate, since you remember such things, can you remember the trades made before Gibbs?

joethefan

10-30-2009, 02:03 AM

I've been saying this for the longest time that Gibbs has to take a good portion of the blame for this. Yes it was happening before he got here, but he could have and should have fixed that behavior, in turn he enouraged and continued it. He never showed them how to run a front office when he knew what the formula for success is and was. he allowed himself to buy into snyders shannanagins thus leaving us in this state. We are basically in Gibbs year 6. And until they get that mentality that it only takes 17 points to win a game (which was Gibbs Idea) outa here the youngins will continue to be poisoned by that approach.

Then to creep out of town 12 hours after a playoff game after telling your coaches "we'll see you monday to begin the process for next season", is inexcusable. He should have stayed went to the front office and let GW coach the team. Then after year five after showing them how to run things, they would have had much more stability than this...IMO

MadDog97

10-30-2009, 06:26 AM

The only constant has been Snyder. He has to take primary responsibility for this mess.

hail2skins

10-30-2009, 06:27 AM

Goskins11

10-30-2009, 07:31 AM

Really and truly.

Drafting a QB in the first round and waiting 5 years to finally determine that he will never be an adequate starting QB, while giving him over 40 starts in the meantime, was massively damaging.

Similar to how drafting Harrington hurt the Lions and how drafting Carr hurt the Texans, to name a few of the most recent examples of how drafting a first round QB flop can damage a franchise for years.

however, both harrington and carr didn't have a OL. Both of them got creamed every game. I remember watching carr and wondering each time if he was gonna get up. Yeah, they ended up being busts, but i believe in order to develop good Qb's they need to have a little time before the pocket clapses.
Games are won in the trenches. All of next years picks need to address the OL before they can get a qb.

dj_stouty

10-30-2009, 08:14 AM

Hr fan

10-30-2009, 08:56 AM

actually, Gibbs traded away a lot of draft picks in his first tenure here.. he made the disastrous move to trade up to get that midget receiver out of michigan (Carter) who never produced for us (but did for green bay as a returner)

Desmond Howard. Agree no one since Beathard (who used the draft well for KC, MIA and us) and Casserly (meh, used the draft but not well) valued picks. On point I think Gibbs II may have been better than Gibbs I in certrain respects, since he started with a degrading roster and could not spend Beathard-like time on the draft, fo personnel, or adequately controlling snyderatto. I in no way think snyderatto were idle adulators. They have interfered and run the fo personnel hiring since the get-go, except for Marty. Gibbs had neither the time nor the inclination to take on the policy of 3 weeks draft prep by a much reduced staff with snyderatto involved and in addition making almost all FA moves IMO. If this is true making 2 playoff appearances in 4 years is magnificent given the ciurcumstances.

PS There is a reason that Fassel and Zorn were the only applicants besides the unique approach to hiring a HC, AFTER hiring BOTH coordinators and their staffs, that isn't explained by the fouled-up time frame. We stunk so badly then that even respected coordinators like Spagnulo wouldn't come, let alone a major player like Gruden, Shannahan or Cowher. And after the systematic public emasculation of Zorn and the recent ceratto statement that the roster was playoff caliber entering the year, I really don't think the job is more appealing now. (Sidebar - IMHO vinnie is in for the long haul because making statements as divorced from reality as his recent interview and further alienating fans with the sign policy indicates snyder ain't going to change from using a front man to take the heat rather than change in any meaningful manner.)

Moe

10-30-2009, 09:29 AM

ObiWan1278

10-30-2009, 10:26 AM

While I think Campbell hasn't been spectacular...and our O line has had issues...it hasn't had issues this bad for year.... last year was really the first year I think that our aging line really showed. One group I think continuously gets a pass is our recieving corps. With the exception of Moss (who will get lazy and drop passes) and Cooley our receivers I think are very sub-par and have been for years. I don't know how much of this is to blame on the QB...and how much of it is to blame on them not getting open allowing Campbell to throw the ball quicker...but our receiving core has been a joke.

BigTex

10-30-2009, 10:35 AM

my bad.. thanks.. i always got him confused with anthony carter, who WAS productive..

man !! it's b**** to get old ...lol

thanks to everyone else who fixed my faulty memory syndrome..lol

I won't make fun of you for forgetting his name. God-willing we'll all hopefully grow old one day and then we can have young folks giving us the business for not remembering names!

NamVet4

10-30-2009, 11:01 AM

Before you guys label me a "heretic", know that I am a huge Joe Gibbs fan, not just as a coach but as a man as well. I have the utmost respect for him in every aspect.

Now, on to the business at hand - How much of this mess can be blamed squarely on Gibbs' shoulders? :spy:

To the question: Less than 5%! Any NFL coach is still under the auspices and reporting responsibility to the GM and owner! Critique Coach Gibbs under those restrictions.
"Squarely on Gibbs shoulders" requires an acknowledgment of his full and independent status; this is a status we all know did not exist in the relationship with Vincent Cerrato and Daniel Snyder. There are too many variables between Gibbs I and Gibbs II. Joe Gibbs has acknowledged that, during his second stint, he made decisions that had poor consequences on all levels that effected the team.
That said, more than 95% of this mess lies on the shoulders of an incompetent GM and a noxious, ego maniacal meddling owner.
Those of you who quote and trust numerically qualified data know this as a fact for the 11 years that this franchise has degenerated ! The constant in this decline has been the ownership and general manager postions!

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 11:12 AM

This is crazy. Gibbs was charged by Snyder to come in and make them a winner in the short term...not build this team for a future coach. Stop looking back in time and pointing fingers at Gibbs. If we are going to do that...why not blame Spurrier while we are at it!

Gibbs brought his version of the Redskins to the playoffs twice...and actually won a playoff game...which looking back, was quite a feat. Very few coaches could join the Redskins with their dysfunctional structure and produce a playoff contender. Joe did...

Joe had nothing to do with pissing away their (3) 2nd rounders in the '08 draft. Joe had nothing to do with finally drafting a DE for the first time in 11 years and moving him to LB. Joe had nothing to do with the countless errors made by this FO the past 20 or so months.

Our current state of affairs rests squarely on the shoulders of Danny and his bug-eyed mouthpiece, Vinny Cerrato.
Hear, hear. If folks want to blame Gibbs for "buying in" to the faulty Snyder business model, that's fine. If they want to blame him fir signing off on bad trades and ignoring the draft, that's also fine. But do so for his tenure here. Blaming him for 2000, 2002-2003 and 2008-present is improper, even if the same pattern is present. You should be looking at the constants for the years 2000, 2002-present.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 11:16 AM

Hear, hear. If folks want to blame Gibbs for "buying in" to the faulty Snyder business model, that's fine. If they want to blame him fir signing off on bad trades and ignoring the draft, that's also fine. But do so for his tenure here. Blaming him for 2000, 2002-2003 and 2008-present is improper, even if the same pattern is present. You should be looking at the constants for the years 2000, 2002-present.

+1

And any player Gibbs drafted, signed or traded for or any position(s) he neglected could have been addressed by the "brain trust" during the last 2 offseasons.

Keino

10-30-2009, 11:16 AM

This is crazy. Gibbs was charged by Snyder to come in and make them a winner in the short term...not build this team for a future coach. Stop looking back in time and pointing fingers at Gibbs. If we are going to do that...why not blame Spurrier while we are at it!

Gibbs brought his version of the Redskins to the playoffs twice...and actually won a playoff game...which looking back, was quite a feat. Very few coaches could join the Redskins with their dysfunctional structure and produce a playoff contender. Joe did...

Joe had nothing to do with pissing away their (3) 2nd rounders in the '08 draft. Joe had nothing to do with finally drafting a DE for the first time in 11 years and moving him to LB. Joe had nothing to do with the countless errors made by this FO the past 20 or so months.

Our current state of affairs rests squarely on the shoulders of Danny and his bug-eyed mouthpiece, Vinny Cerrato.

Thank you. And to your point about the playoffs, Joe is THE ONLY coach to do this under the current front office structure. Danny doesn't get credit for the 1999 team that won the division, since Casserly put that team together.

Nomad

10-30-2009, 12:23 PM

Gibbs made some questionable moves(especially giving Gregg Williams basic autonomy running the defense), but compared to how Snyderatto have done without adult supervision, his moves generally look pretty good. Trading away 2 2nds(basically) for Cooley and Portis still looks like steals.

Portis for a 2nd and a probable HOF corner (Champ Bailey) was never a steal. Ever. Straight up, you could argue a fair trade. One of the top 3 shutdown corners in NFL and a 2nd, we got punk'd.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 12:32 PM

Portis and a 2nd for a probable HOF corner (Champ Bailey) was never a steal. Ever. Straight up, you could argue a fair trade. One of the top 3 shutdown corners in NFL and a 2nd, we got punk'd.

Champ bailey said publicly for months leading up to his free agency that he never was going to resign with the skins for any amount of money. So, the trade is Clinton portis for a high 2nd. Thats a steal for a Rb who's gotten over 6000 yards since coming to DC.

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 12:50 PM

Champ bailey said publicly for months leading up to his free agency that he never was going to resign with the skins for any amount of money. So, the trade is Clinton portis for a high 2nd. Thats a steal for a Rb who's gotten over 6000 yards since coming to DC.
I don't agree with this assessment. You're basically saying that Champ Bailey was worth nothing. How often in the history of the NFL has any player who was intent on not re-signing, no matter how animated, been let go for absolutely nothing? I think you're discounting the value of Bailey and the impossibility of a player to simply not play for a team that has them franchised.

dj_stouty

10-30-2009, 12:53 PM

Champ bailey said publicly for months leading up to his free agency that he never was going to resign with the skins for any amount of money. So, the trade is Clinton portis for a high 2nd. Thats a steal for a Rb who's gotten over 6000 yards since coming to DC.

Not to mention Portis is 880 yards away from breaking Riggo's record for most rushing yards by a Redskin. Not too shabby considering this team's historical propensity for running the ball often in games.

We already offered Champ a contract that would have made him the highest paid at his position and he turned it down. Technically, all we lost was 1 season from Champ (at highest average of top 5 CB salaries) and a 2nd rounder for Portis. And I believe we basically replaced Champ with a still-in-his-prime Shawn Springs. There are a lot of Redskins trades I'd love to have back...I'd still do the Portis/Champ deal as-is knowing what we know now.

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 01:04 PM

Not to mention Portis is 880 yards away from breaking Riggo's record for most rushing yards by a Redskin. Not too shabby considering this team's historical propensity for running the ball often in games.

We already offered Champ a contract that would have made him the highest paid at his position and he turned it down. Technically, all we lost was 1 season from Champ (at highest average of top 5 CB salaries) and a 2nd rounder for Portis. And I believe we basically replaced Champ with a still-in-his-prime Shawn Springs. There are a lot of Redskins trades I'd love to have back...I'd still do the Portis/Champ deal as-is knowing what we know now.
I wouldn't and I am a huge Portis fan.

Just because a trade was not a total disaster doesn't mean that we could not and should not have done better. Our history of getting screwed on trades and trading away too much for very little is a prism that affects how we view everything this franchise does.

Our expectations are so low that if we simply get close to a fair deal, we're ecstatic about it. But ask yourself, what if we could have gotten a 1st and a 3rd from someone else? What if we could have only gotten a 1st? Or if we had traded away Betts for Portis as part of the deal and kept the 2nd? A merely competent GM could have done myriad things that didn't involve giving up a 2nd as part of that deal.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 01:06 PM

I don't agree with this assessment. You're basically saying that Champ Bailey was worth nothing. How often in the history of the NFL has any player who was intent on not re-signing, no matter how animated, been let go for absolutely nothing? I think you're discounting the value of Bailey and the impossibility of a player to simply not play for a team that has them franchised.

No, I'm saying that since he made it clear he wouldn't resign with the skins(and I don't think the skins could have just done the multiple tags trick with him at that time in the league, and if they were allowed to, I doubt the skins would have kept shelling out 10-13 million a year for a player who wanted to leave) Bailey's worth is irrelevant for discussions about the trade.

And I think that there's a difference between Champ, who just flat out said he wasn't going to resign and didn't want to remain in DC and a guy like Asomugha, who everyone knew was unhappy at being tagged because he wanted to explore other options.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 01:08 PM

I wouldn't and I am a huge Portis fan.

Just because a trade was not a total disaster doesn't mean that we could not and should not have done better. Our history of getting screwed on trades and trading away too much for very little is a prism that affects how we view everything this franchise does.

Our expectations are so low that if we simply get close to a fair deal, we're ecstatic about it. But ask yourself, what if we could have gotten a 1st and a 3rd from someone else? What if we could have only gotten a 1st? Or if we had traded away Betts for Portis as part of the deal and kept the 2nd? A merely competent GM could have done myriad things that didn't involve giving up a 2nd as part of that deal.

We were openly shopping him for weeks before we dealt him to Denver. The only vaguely credible rumored deal that the skins had on the table was the offer from the Jets of Lamont Jordan, a 2nd, anthony becht and some other spare parts. No one really wanted to give up high draft picks for him(Pastabelli reported that we tried to get the Falcons to give up a 1st and more and they balked if memory serves).

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 01:11 PM

We were openly shopping him for weeks before we dealt him to Denver. The only vaguely credible rumored deal that the skins had on the table was the offer from the Jets of Lamont Jordan, a 2nd, anthony becht and some other spare parts. No one really wanted to give up high draft picks for him(Pastabelli reported that we tried to get the Falcons to give up a 1st and more and they balked if memory serves).
Here's what I think, becuase we've all seen it before. Denver offered Portis and a 2nd for Bailey and Danny accepted the deal before they finished speaking. Just like that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer accepted the lifetime coffee before they got to the "AND" part of the settlement, pissing off Jackie Chiles lol.

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 01:13 PM

No, I'm saying that since he made it clear he wouldn't resign with the skins(and I don't think the skins could have just done the multiple tags trick with him at that time in the league, and if they were allowed to, I doubt the skins would have kept shelling out 10-13 million a year for a player who wanted to leave) Bailey's worth is irrelevant for discussions about the trade.

And I think that there's a difference between Champ, who just flat out said he wasn't going to resign and didn't want to remain in DC and a guy like Asomugha, who everyone knew was unhappy at being tagged because he wanted to explore other options.
Let. Him. Sit.

Very few other players have rolled over a franchise like Bailey did the Redskins. I would have let his arse rot. By October, he'd have been either playing or traded for more than what we got.

The 2nd was preposterous. No way it should have even been considered. I would have taken the Lamont Jordan deal and gotten another couple of starters out of it.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 01:20 PM

Let. Him. Sit.

Very few other players have rolled over a franchise like Bailey did the Redskins. I would have let his arse rot. By October, he'd have been either playing or traded for more than what we got.

I would have to check on the rules at the time, but I don't think that the skins could have done the Walter Jones trick back then. They might have just been able to tag him once, then watch him walk.

The 2nd was preposterous. No way it should have even been considered. I would have taken the Lamont Jordan deal and gotten another couple of starters out of it.

If that deal was ever offered(which I don't think it was), thats a much worse offer imo. So, the skins don't get Cooley since they just got Becht, have a much worse Rb in Lamont Jordan and a mid 2nd? I don't see how the skins are doing much better with that rumored deal.

RedskinsDave

10-30-2009, 01:26 PM

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 01:35 PM

I would have to check on the rules at the time, but I don't think that the skins could have done the Walter Jones trick back then. They might have just been able to tag him once, then watch him walk.
I don't know why they couldn't have. I don't know that the rules have changed. Or why Champ was the only player in recent memory to be able to pull off that trick.

If that deal was ever offered(which I don't think it was), thats a much worse offer imo. So, the skins don't get Cooley since they just got Becht, have a much worse Rb in Lamont Jordan and a mid 2nd? I don't see how the skins are doing much better with that rumored deal.
You don't know that they wouldn't have gotten Cooley. By that logic, we don't need Yoder.

You would effectively have gotten 2-1/2 starters for 1. Instead, we effectively gave up 2 starters for 1. Bad deal, especially when you're trying to build a team with a new coach.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 01:47 PM

I don't know why they couldn't have. I don't know that the rules have changed. Or why Champ was the only player in recent memory to be able to pull off that trick.

Well, you can't trade(ok, technically you could, but you would have to eat the entire franchise tag amount) a franchise tag after a certain date or the entire amount is guaranteed. I don't think waiting Champ out would have been productive since he knows that he just can wait out the the year and be free(maybe) and that the skins wouldn't deal him after some date in july(the guaranteed date).

And what trick? He got tagged and dealt away from the team he wanted to leave. Matt Cassell did that this offseason(he obviously wanted to leave for different reasons), Julius Peppers got close to being dealt a couple times in the last couple seasons(apparently he was extremely close to being dealt to the Pats). Jared Allen and Stacy Andrews also got tagged/dealt after demanding too much money/whining to leave. I believe Allen is an even closer parallel since he wanted to leave KC and made it clear he wasn't going to stay.

You don't know that they wouldn't have gotten Cooley. By that logic, we don't need Yoder.

It is a counterfactual, but do you honestly see the Skins trading away another 2nd for Cooley if they were trying to justify the Bailey deal to the jets?

You would effectively have gotten 2-1/2 starters for 1. Instead, we effectively gave up 2 starters for 1. Bad deal, especially when you're trying to build a team with a new coach.

No, we gave up 1 starter for 1. Bailey was leaving come hell or high water and the skins could either have dealt him or lost him for nothing. And Portis has 6000+ yards since we got him. Jordan had 1 1000 yard season and nothing else. Becht has been a waste of space.

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 02:14 PM

Well, you can't trade(ok, technically you could, but you would have to eat the entire franchise tag amount) a franchise tag after a certain date or the entire amount is guaranteed. I don't think waiting Champ out would have been productive since he knows that he just can wait out the the year and be free(maybe) and that the skins wouldn't deal him after some date in july(the guaranteed date).
As I recall the rule, they could continue to tag him indefinitely. It wasn't until later that folks started working out agreements to be tagged this year if made a UFA the next year.

And what trick? He got tagged and dealt away from the team he wanted to leave. Matt Cassell did that this offseason(he obviously wanted to leave for different reasons), Julius Peppers got close to being dealt a couple times in the last couple seasons(apparently he was extremely close to being dealt to the Pats). Jared Allen and Stacy Andrews also got tagged/dealt after demanding too much money/whining to leave. I believe Allen is an even closer parallel since he wanted to leave KC and made it clear he wasn't going to stay.
Your talking about a handful of people since the FA structure was put in place. Close to being dealt doesn't count because it could be (and usually is) a ploy. So nix Peppers. Cassell wasn't sitting out, being a jerk and refusing to ever play for the team again. Neither was Stacy Andrews. Both were tagged as a protective measure with full intention to deal them later.

That leaves Jared Allen who, I agree with you, is the best parallel. Except that Kansas City got back a 1st, two 3rds and swapped 6ths with the Vikings. Nowhere in that deal did you see Minnesota discount the value of their player (Allen, who is shadowing Bailey in this example) by sending back a 2nd to Kansas City. To the contrary, they got back not one but TWO 3rd round picks.

Portis + 2nd for Bailey was a bad deal. Take away the 2nd and it's a fair trade. We overpaid. Accept it and move on, but don't kid yourself.

It is a counterfactual, but do you honestly see the Skins trading away another 2nd for Cooley if they were trying to justify the Bailey deal to the jets?
Yes, becase they needed and broadcasted that they needed an H-Back. Coley was the highest rated H-Back coming out that year (and in a number of years).

But, then again, in my scenario, the Redskins would not have had to trade two 3rds to move up into the 2nd because they would have still had their 2nd. And another one in the Lamont Jordan deal that could have been used on another potential starter. ;)

No, we gave up 1 starter for 1. Bailey was leaving come hell or high water and the skins could either have dealt him or lost him for nothing. And Portis has 6000+ yards since we got him. Jordan had 1 1000 yard season and nothing else. Becht has been a waste of space.
This is not an indictment of Portis, so don't portray it as one.

Bailey was a starter and a pro bowler. Whether he would have played or not is an unknown. Brandon Marshal demanded to be traded and said that he would never play another game in a Broncos uniform. Yet, there he is playing every week. The point is that words are words are words.

Assuming that 1st and 2nd round draft picks should become starters on your team, the math is simple. We gave up 2 potential starters for someone, if not us, (Bailey and a 2nd) for 1 starter (Portis). The Lamont Jordan deal actually lets you add 3-1/2 starters (Jordan, Becht (1/2), the 2nd rounder from the Jets and our original 2nd rounder) [while losing only 1 (Bailey)].

That is a [3]-1/2 player differential. Wow, I never looked at it that way until now. That's a huge, huge difference.

[edit] Math was wrong

joethefan

10-30-2009, 02:17 PM

uhh, I believe Vinny and Dan could have drafted anyone they wanted to when Gibbs left. They also could have signed any free agent. How is Gibbs responsible for what they did and didn't do after he left? Remember Dan said he had learned while under Gibbs. Now we know he didn't.

Yes Danny did learn...he learned how to continue the same behavior that Gibbs bought in to Win NOW..that was the only mentality that they had...as opposed to building of the future.

Gibbs did not show Dan how to build for thw future which was what HE (Gibbs knew how to do because he saw it first hand in Beatherd)....

He doesn't get a pass from me...why it is that the Skins are scoring little to no points, because GIBBS incorporated that into the mentality of the team...score 17 points and play good defense, we often talk about lack of execution because Gibbs never made the offense accountable....

But it seems mighty funny how GW did and Gibbs had no problem with that...

joethefan

10-30-2009, 02:42 PM

All I'm saying is Gibbs could have built the team from the inside out, through the o and d lines and then everyone else, but he allowed the open checkbook to control him...with the "well we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". thought in mind.

We all knew that Danny and Vinnie didn't know what they were doing, But Gibbs should have slowed them down and built from within and showed them how to which proves to me that even he didn't know what he was doing from a FO standpoint. We are looking at all of our depth, in the post that listed what we gave up while GIbbs was here.

Gibbs IMO is just as guilty for buying into such a crazy system as this one. If he ok'd many of those deals which all points go to him, then much of the blame should go his way.

By no means am i defending Vinnie but it's funny how today Vinnie is the Pres. and we want to blame him, which is well deserved, but we turn our heads when we talk about Gibbs being President as well.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 02:54 PM

As I recall the rule, they could continue to tag him indefinitely. It wasn't until later that folks started working out agreements to be tagged this year if made a UFA the next year.

Those are informal agreements, and they've tweaked the rules for Franchise tags a number of times. The problem is that, even assuming the skins could keep applying the tag to Bailey, they would be spending 12(and increasing every season by 2-4 million) million a year for a player who is going through the motions to get his freedom. At some point, its just not worth it to keep paying for the cold war.

Your talking about a handful of people since the FA structure was put in place. Close to being dealt doesn't count because it could be (and usually is) a ploy. So nix Peppers. Cassell wasn't sitting out, being a jerk and refusing to ever play for the team again. Neither was Stacy Andrews. Both were tagged as a protective measure with full intention to deal them later.

Those are just examples from the last couple years.

That leaves Jared Allen who, I agree with you, is the best parallel. Except that Kansas City got back a 1st, two 3rds and swapped 6ths with the Vikings. Nowhere in that deal did you see Minnesota discount the value of their player (Allen, who is shadowing Bailey in this example) by sending back a 2nd to Kansas City. To the contrary, they got back not one but TWO 3rd round picks.

I could point out that while the Chiefs got those amount of picks for Allen they only had to give up a 2nd for Matt Cassell in a franchise tag deal. Jared Allen, his boozing aside, is a top 3 player at his position. Bailey is a very good player, but he's never been as dominating as Allen has been at his.

Portis + 2nd for Bailey was a bad deal. Take away the 2nd and it's a fair trade. We overpaid. Accept it and move on, but don't kid yourself.

And if we dealt Bailey in the middle of a 6 year deal, you would be right. Bailey wasn't going to stay and its revisionist history to turn around and say: "well, the skins could have told him to rot." I don't know how much clearer Bailey could have been about his feeling regarding staying in DC. He wasn't going to stay and the Skins weren't going to choke the cap just to stand on principle.

Yes, becase they needed and broadcasted that they needed an H-Back. Coley was the highest rated H-Back coming out that year (and in a number of years).

I just can't believe that at all. No way would they have traded away a future 2nd for Cooley after getting Becht.

But, then again, in my scenario, the Redskins would not have had to trade two 3rds to move up into the 2nd because they would have still had their 2nd. And another one in the Lamont Jordan deal that could have been used on another potential starter. ;)

Let me adjust my previous statement: No way would they have drafted a TE, even to play him at H-Back after getting Becht.

Your far too optimistic about Lamont Jordan btw.

This is not an indictment of Portis, so don't portray it as one.

I'm not, but you can't have it both ways. You can't judge the trade without looking at the results.

Bailey was a starter and a pro bowler. Whether he would have played or not is an unknown. Brandon Marshal demanded to be traded and said that he would never play another game in a Broncos uniform. Yet, there he is playing every week. The point is that words are words are words.

Marshall wasn't a free agent or a tagged player, so there's no comparison. Marshall doesn't have a choice, he would have to forfeit his signing bonus eventually if he continued to boycott playing. If a franchise player never signs his tag, he doesn't have to play and the team who tagged him doesn't have any options besides trading him.

Assuming that 1st and 2nd round draft picks should become starters on your team, the math is simple. We gave up 2 potential starters for someone, if not us, (Bailey and a 2nd) for 1 starter (Portis). The Lamont Jordan deal actually lets you add 3-1/2 starters (Jordan, Becht (1/2), the 2nd rounder from the Jets and our original 2nd rounder) [while losing only 1 (Bailey)].

That is a [3]-1/2 player differential. Wow, I never looked at it that way until now. That's a huge, huge difference.

[edit] Math was wrong

This is all assuming this trade offer was real(which I don't make).

No, its not. Its a major downgrade at RB and TE for hoping that Gibbs/Snyderatto can hit a home run with one of those 2nds. As for those 2nds, here are the 30 picks starting with Tatum Bell being drafted by the Broncos(the only players worth the pick I've embolden):
41 Tatum Bell RB Oklahoma State Denver Broncos
42 Travis LaBoy DE Hawaii Tennessee Titans
43 Julius Jones RB Notre Dame Dallas Cowboys
44 Bob Sanders DB Iowa Indianapolis Colts
45 Jake Grove G Virginia Tech Oakland Raiders
46 Justin Smiley G Alabama San Francisco 49ers
47 Tank Johnson DT Washington Chicago Bears
48 Dontarrious Thomas OLB Auburn Minnesota Vikings
49 Keiwan Ratliff CB Florida Cincinnati Bengals
50 Devery Henderson WR Louisiana State New Orleans Saints
51 Dwan Edwards DT Oregon State Baltimore Ravens
52 Jacob Rogers T USC Dallas Cowboys
53 Michael Boulware DB Florida State Seattle Seahawks
54 Darius Watts WR Marshall Denver Broncos
55 Greg Jones RB Florida State Jacksonville Jaguars
56 Madieu Williams FS Maryland Cincinnati Bengals
57 Antwan Odom DE Alabama Tennessee Titans
58 Shawntae Spencer CB Pittsburgh San Francisco 49ers
59 Sean Jones SAF Georgia Cleveland Browns
60 Courtney Watson MLB Notre Dame New Orleans Saints
61 Kris Wilson TE Pittsburgh Kansas City Chiefs
62 Keary Colbert WR USC Carolina Panthers
63 Marquise Hill DE Louisiana State New England Patriots
64 Darnell Dockett DT Florida State Arizona Cardinals
65 Nate Kaeding K Iowa San Diego Chargers
66 Nick Hardwick C Purdue San Diego Chargers
67 Stuart Schweigert SAF Purdue Oakland Raiders
68 Ben Hartsock TE Ohio State Indianapolis Colts
69 Gilbert Gardner LB Purdue Indianapolis Colts
70 Joey Thomas CB Montana State Green Bay Packers

So, out of that list, cross of Bob Sanders, Madieu Williams and Sean Jones, the skins wouldn't have drafted another safety after taking Taylor at #5. Johnson and Dockett would have been interesting, but they had major character flags coming out of school I believe. Grove and Smiley are C+ players at best. Harwick is a B-/B level starter. Odom was a late bloomer from that Dline coach they have in Tennessee. There's no player(or combo of players) in that part of the draft that would have been realistic targets for the skins in that draft potentially made up for the downgrade from Portis to Jordan or Cooley to Becht.

Redskinmayhem

10-30-2009, 03:55 PM

^ good point - Cooley to Becht would've been a MASSIVE downgrade. We don't even need to mention CP.

Keino

10-30-2009, 04:26 PM

^ good point - Cooley to Becht would've been a MASSIVE downgrade. We don't even need to mention CP.

I wouldn't say massive. Becht is a far better blocker than Cooley.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 04:35 PM

I wouldn't say massive. Becht is a far better blocker than Cooley.

Yes, but his career receiving numbers in 10 seasons are about the same as 1.5 seasons of Cooley's. This hypothetical would be taking away the skins' top rusher and receiver since 2004 for a backup RB, a so-so TE and 2 2nds. The only way that's a good move is if Joe Gibbs had Miss Cleo to tell him to take Jericho Cotchery and Jared Allen 80 picks before they were actually taken lol.

Skins7ny

10-30-2009, 07:09 PM

Brunell for a 3rd
CP for Champ Bailey and a 2nd
Jason Campbell for a 1st, 3rd, 4th
TJ Duckett for a 3rd and 4th
Brandon Lloyd for a 3rd and 4th
Cooley for a 2nd
Rocky for a 2nd
Kendall for a 4th

That's all that I can remember....
It was 2 #2s and a 6 for Rocky. Akhhorus fell over himself backwards defending that trade. I criticized it from the get-go.
I thought you were talking about Tom Carter, who I believe we got in the same draft. He was a CB that we got in the later rounds. Maybe it wasn't the same draft but it was somewhere around then.

I think the only thing we can really put on Gibbs is he left when he said he would stay for the full 5 years.
Tom Carter was a Casserly pick. Very talented corner but didn't have great instincts and didn't really seem to love the game that much.
...[I] can make the case that those franchises' failures to surround them with adequate talent was the main cause for their failures. Especially Carr and his Oline(I think Carr holds the NFL record for most times sacked in a season), but Harrington's supporting cast was comical outside of Roy Williams. The QBs who can thrive without much help are very few and far between.
The same thing applies to Patrick Ramsey. He had a poor OL, no running game to speak of, horrible receivers and a coach who wasn't qualified for the NFL. And he still managed to throw more TDs than picks, a remarkable feat for a young QB. Gibbs converted him into a high-percentage, low risk-passer, but never really gave him a chance to run the team. Ramsey was shell-shocked and hasn't recovered to date.
...[A]nd not to nitpick, but the concept of drafting Dlinemen after signing Fat Albert and drafting Orakpo/Jarmon or drafting a Rb while Portis is still on pace for a 1200 yard season despite the oline issues aren't sound ones.
Defending Portis' season so far by citing his yardage totals is laughable. Our running game is pathetic. While the OL deserves a lot of the blame, Portis does as well. If this were Ladell Betts running like this instead of Portis, you would have been calling for him to be replaced weeks ago.
Portis for a 2nd and a probable HOF corner (Champ Bailey) was never a steal. Ever. Straight up, you could argue a fair trade. One of the top 3 shutdown corners in NFL and a 2nd, we got punk'd.
+1. RBs are a dime a dozen, even very good ones like Portis. And Portis did not fit our system, which was a man-blocking, between the tackles style. Portis is a much better fit for a Broncos-style zone - blocking scheme, which is one of the reasons why he averaged 5.5 yards per carry there and averages 4.1 yards here. A number of teams have gotten 1,000 yard plus performances out of RBs found in the lower rounds or on the scrap heap. Trading a HOF CB for a RB, even an excellent RB, is just dumb, and throwing in a 2nd-round pick was just non-sensical.
Champ bailey said publicly for months leading up to his free agency that he never was going to resign with the skins for any amount of money. So, the trade is Clinton portis for a high 2nd. Thats a steal for a Rb who's gotten over 6000 yards since coming to DC.
Blah, blah blah. Just talk, it means nothing. Continuing to pretend that Bailey was a throw-in to the trade because we could not have signed him is a counter-factual. There have been lots of players who say they will never re-sign, then play lovey-dovey at the press conference announcing their new deal. And him refusing to play for us, if true, doesn't diminish his trade value in any big way since we franchised him.
As I recall the rule, they could continue to tag him indefinitely. It wasn't until later that folks started working out agreements to be tagged this year if made a UFA the next year.

Your talking about a handful of people since the FA structure was put in place. Close to being dealt doesn't count because it could be (and usually is) a ploy. So nix Peppers. Cassell wasn't sitting out, being a jerk and refusing to ever play for the team again. Neither was Stacy Andrews. Both were tagged as a protective measure with full intention to deal them later.

That leaves Jared Allen who, I agree with you, is the best parallel. Except that Kansas City got back a 1st, two 3rds and swapped 6ths with the Vikings. Nowhere in that deal did you see Minnesota discount the value of their player (Allen, who is shadowing Bailey in this example) by sending back a 2nd to Kansas City. To the contrary, they got back not one but TWO 3rd round picks.

Portis + 2nd for Bailey was a bad deal. Take away the 2nd and it's a fair trade. We overpaid. Accept it and move on, but don't kid yourself.

Yes, becase they needed and broadcasted that they needed an H-Back. Coley was the highest rated H-Back coming out that year (and in a number of years).

But, then again, in my scenario, the Redskins would not have had to trade two 3rds to move up into the 2nd because they would have still had their 2nd. And another one in the Lamont Jordan deal that could have been used on another potential starter. ;)

This is not an indictment of Portis, so don't portray it as one.

Bailey was a starter and a pro bowler. Whether he would have played or not is an unknown. Brandon Marshal demanded to be traded and said that he would never play another game in a Broncos uniform. Yet, there he is playing every week. The point is that words are words are words.

Assuming that 1st and 2nd round draft picks should become starters on your team, the math is simple. We gave up 2 potential starters for someone, if not us, (Bailey and a 2nd) for 1 starter (Portis). The Lamont Jordan deal actually lets you add 3-1/2 starters (Jordan, Becht (1/2), the 2nd rounder from the Jets and our original 2nd rounder) [while losing only 1 (Bailey)].

That is a [3]-1/2 player differential. Wow, I never looked at it that way until now. That's a huge, huge difference.

[edit] Math was wrong

And Jared Allen was traded while being one more DUI away from a lifetime suspension. And that didn't seem to diminish his trade value.

shally

10-30-2009, 09:42 PM

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 09:47 PM

It was 2 #2s and a 6 for Rocky. Akhhorus fell over himself backwards defending that trade. I criticized it from the get-go.

If by "falling over backwards" you mean "he's a polished player with some upside" and giving the move a B I believe. And you criticize just about every move just to be sure lol. And we went over this earlier in the thread, but Rocky's stats compare favorably to a guy like Ernie Sims, who's seen as a talented player.

The same thing applies to Patrick Ramsey. He had a poor OL, no running game to speak of, horrible receivers and a coach who wasn't qualified for the NFL. And he still managed to throw more TDs than picks, a remarkable feat for a young QB. Gibbs converted him into a high-percentage, low risk-passer, but never really gave him a chance to run the team. Ramsey was shell-shocked and hasn't recovered to date.

Ramsey had a much better Oline than Campbell has now and two decent WRs and compared to Santana Moss once a month and drek. Campbell did have a much better running game. But the stat comparison between Campbell and Ramsey isn't even close, Ramsey took sacks like it was going out of style(1 for every 11 pass attempts in DC I believe).

Defending Portis' season so far by citing his yardage totals is laughable. Our running game is pathetic. While the OL deserves a lot of the blame, Portis does as well. If this were Ladell Betts running like this instead of Portis, you would have been calling for him to be replaced weeks ago.

If Betts had 490 yards and a 4.1 ypc through 7 games with a disaster area at Oline, I wouldn't be calling for him to be replaced. And I'd love to know how Portis is to blame when he has an Oline without a functional offensive tackle and a RG who is useless.

+1. RBs are a dime a dozen, even very good ones like Portis. And Portis did not fit our system, which was a man-blocking, between the tackles style. Portis is a much better fit for a Broncos-style zone - blocking scheme, which is one of the reasons why he averaged 5.5 yards per carry there and averages 4.1 yards here. A number of teams have gotten 1,000 yard plus performances out of RBs found in the lower rounds or on the scrap heap. Trading a HOF CB for a RB, even an excellent RB, is just dumb, and throwing in a 2nd-round pick was just non-sensical.

Good thing we switched to a zone blocking scheme a few games into 2004, no? And saying that 'very good Rbs are a dime a dozen' is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said in your time here. Merely good Rbs are easy to find. Rbs who average over 1000 yards a season over long stretches are almost impossible to find. In fact there's only 5 other Rbs who've averaged 1000 yards a season since 2004: Tomlinson, Thomas Jones, Steve Jackson, Edge James and Jamal Lewis. And only LDT has more yards than Portis does in that time period I believe.

Blah, blah blah. Just talk, it means nothing. Continuing to pretend that Bailey was a throw-in to the trade because we could not have signed him is a counter-factual. There have been lots of players who say they will never re-sign, then play lovey-dovey at the press conference announcing their new deal. And him refusing to play for us, if true, doesn't diminish his trade value in any big way since we franchised him.

Considering that even if I was pretending that Bailey was a throw in couldn't be a counterfactual in any way, shape or form, you're not making any sense again. There haven't been any other players who said multiple times(which were discussed here) who said publicly that they were not going to resign with the Skins, begged not to be franchise tagged and refuse to discuss extensions with the skins. So, unless you can prove that it was all a bargaining tactic, you're talking out your ass.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 09:51 PM

Keino

10-30-2009, 09:58 PM

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 10:12 PM

I could point out that while the Chiefs got those amount of picks for Allen they only had to give up a 2nd for Matt Cassell in a franchise tag deal. Jared Allen, his boozing aside, is a top 3 player at his position. Bailey is a very good player, but he's never been as dominating as Allen has been at his.
Yeah, but Cassell was admittedly a one year wonder. He could have turned out to be a Rob Johnson, so they had to protect themselves. And they *still* ended up giving up a 2nd.

And if we dealt Bailey in the middle of a 6 year deal, you would be right. Bailey wasn't going to stay and its revisionist history to turn around and say: "well, the skins could have told him to rot." I don't know how much clearer Bailey could have been about his feeling regarding staying in DC. He wasn't going to stay and the Skins weren't going to choke the cap just to stand on principle.
It's not revisionist history if you thought the same thing at the time. I didn't think we were getting value for Bailey. And I totally reject the notion that we should all just consider Bailey to be valueless since he wasn't going to play for us. There have been precious few players who have been franchised, said they weren't going to play and followed through on it. In fact, I can't really think of one.

I just can't believe that at all. No way would they have traded away a future 2nd for Cooley after getting Becht.

Let me adjust my previous statement: No way would they have drafted a TE, even to play him at H-Back after getting Becht.
Gibbs ran a lot of 2 TE sets (1 was an H back). I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that even if they got Becht that they wouldn't get still get Cooley. It's all conjecture, of course, but this whole discussion is conjecture lol.

Your far too optimistic about Lamont Jordan btw.

I'm not, but you can't have it both ways. You can't judge the trade without looking at the results.
Lamont Jordan hasn't done much, that's true. But neither had Michael Turner. Or Cedric Benson. The system that a guy is in and the coach he plays for has a lot to do with that. I always thought that Lamont Jordan was a better fit for the Gibbs scheme than someone like Betts and Betts managed to get 1,000 yards under Gibbs.

Marshall wasn't a free agent or a tagged player, so there's no comparison. Marshall doesn't have a choice, he would have to forfeit his signing bonus eventually if he continued to boycott playing. If a franchise player never signs his tag, he doesn't have to play and the team who tagged him doesn't have any options besides trading him.
The comparison is that words are words are words. The main point is that there are not a whole lot of tagged guys who say that they won't play for a team who actually follow through on it. The Jared Allens of the league are rare. And in the end, KC ended up getting more out of the Vikings than we ended up getting for a multiple time pro bowler who was considered to be a top 5 (if not 3) cornerback in the league.

This is all assuming this trade offer was real(which I don't make).
You're right. If the trade offer wasn't real, then this is all just hot air.

No, its not. Its a major downgrade at RB and TE for hoping that Gibbs/Snyderatto can hit a home run with one of those 2nds. As for those 2nds, here are the 30 picks starting with Tatum Bell being drafted by the Broncos(the only players worth the pick I've embolden):
41 Tatum Bell RB Oklahoma State Denver Broncos
42 Travis LaBoy DE Hawaii Tennessee Titans
43 Julius Jones RB Notre Dame Dallas Cowboys
44 Bob Sanders DB Iowa Indianapolis Colts
45 Jake Grove G Virginia Tech Oakland Raiders
46 Justin Smiley G Alabama San Francisco 49ers
47 Tank Johnson DT Washington Chicago Bears
48 Dontarrious Thomas OLB Auburn Minnesota Vikings
49 Keiwan Ratliff CB Florida Cincinnati Bengals
50 Devery Henderson WR Louisiana State New Orleans Saints
51 Dwan Edwards DT Oregon State Baltimore Ravens
52 Jacob Rogers T USC Dallas Cowboys
53 Michael Boulware DB Florida State Seattle Seahawks
54 Darius Watts WR Marshall Denver Broncos
55 Greg Jones RB Florida State Jacksonville Jaguars
56 Madieu Williams FS Maryland Cincinnati Bengals
57 Antwan Odom DE Alabama Tennessee Titans
58 Shawntae Spencer CB Pittsburgh San Francisco 49ers
59 Sean Jones SAF Georgia Cleveland Browns
60 Courtney Watson MLB Notre Dame New Orleans Saints
61 Kris Wilson TE Pittsburgh Kansas City Chiefs
62 Keary Colbert WR USC Carolina Panthers
63 Marquise Hill DE Louisiana State New England Patriots
64 Darnell Dockett DT Florida State Arizona Cardinals
65 Nate Kaeding K Iowa San Diego Chargers
66 Nick Hardwick C Purdue San Diego Chargers
67 Stuart Schweigert SAF Purdue Oakland Raiders
68 Ben Hartsock TE Ohio State Indianapolis Colts
69 Gilbert Gardner LB Purdue Indianapolis Colts
70 Joey Thomas CB Montana State Green Bay Packers

So, out of that list, cross of Bob Sanders, Madieu Williams and Sean Jones, the skins wouldn't have drafted another safety after taking Taylor at #5. Johnson and Dockett would have been interesting, but they had major character flags coming out of school I believe. Grove and Smiley are C+ players at best. Harwick is a B-/B level starter. Odom was a late bloomer from that Dline coach they have in Tennessee. There's no player(or combo of players) in that part of the draft that would have been realistic targets for the skins in that draft potentially made up for the downgrade from Portis to Jordan or Cooley to Becht.
In this way, you're correct. You cannot assign the traditional value to draft picks with Snyderrato picking lol. But, since I'm playing s***house GM here, I have to go by the conventional wisdom.

When you consider the conventional stupidity out of our FO, I guess we're lucky that they didn't trade Bailey for a pez dispenser with the Incredible Hulk's head on it lol.

I was pulling to get Dockett hard in that draft, BTW. I would have used one of my 2nd round picks on him and not thought twice about it.

bigcmr

10-30-2009, 10:15 PM

Biggest problem with Gibbs was the trades he made. He always over spent. And even tho we all love Gibbs you cant get around he completly ingored mid to late round draft picks. And it costed us in the long run.

BurgundyNGold

10-30-2009, 10:16 PM

I wouldn't say massive. Becht is a far better blocker than Cooley.
I also don't subscribe to the theory that Gibbs would not have taken Cooley even with Becht on the roster. Didier and Warren? Gibbs was notorious for his 2 TE sets. One was a mostly receiver, the other mostly a blocker.

bigcmr

10-30-2009, 10:26 PM

Though this list is not entirely accurate, since you remember such things, can you remember the trades made before Gibbs?

That might be a never ending list. LOL Remember 2003 when Vinny blew most our draft picks on RFAs that by the way most of them only hung around for a year at best.

akhhorus

10-30-2009, 10:26 PM

Yeah, but Cassell was admittedly a one year wonder. He could have turned out to be a Rob Johnson, so they had to protect themselves. And they *still* ended up giving up a 2nd.

Yeah, but Josh McDaniels--who we can agree on is a smart head coach/offensive mind--was willing to destroy his team chemistry and dump Jay Cutler to the Bucs for Cassell and the Pats settled for a high second.

It's not revisionist history if you thought the same thing at the time. I didn't think we were getting value for Bailey. And I totally reject the notion that we should all just consider Bailey to be valueless since he wasn't going to play for us. There have been precious few players who have been franchised, said they weren't going to play and followed through on it. In fact, I can't really think of one.

It is a rare situation, but Bailey had all the cards frankly. And in this admittedly rare scenario(which is more like a baseball scenario), the question is what did you get for the player.

Gibbs ran a lot of 2 TE sets (1 was an H back). I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that even if they got Becht that they wouldn't get still get Cooley. It's all conjecture, of course, but this whole discussion is conjecture lol.

Its a bye week and the Skins suck royal donkey balls. I can only drink so much lol.

Lamont Jordan hasn't done much, that's true. But neither had Michael Turner. Or Cedric Benson. The system that a guy is in and the coach he plays for has a lot to do with that. I always thought that Lamont Jordan was a better fit for the Gibbs scheme than someone like Betts and Betts managed to get 1,000 yards under Gibbs.

No, but I don't see the parallels. Turner was a backup who got 40ish million coming off of a 300 yard season. Benson was always a talent, but was a major headcase. Jordan was signed by the Raiders at a backloaded contract at cut rate for a supposed emerging RB, which should tell you a lot lol.

The comparison is that words are words are words. The main point is that there are not a whole lot of tagged guys who say that they won't play for a team who actually follow through on it. The Jared Allens of the league are rare. And in the end, KC ended up getting more out of the Vikings than we ended up getting for a multiple time pro bowler who was considered to be a top 5 (if not 3) cornerback in the league.

Eh...actually the Chiefs got a starting Left tackle and not much else with their picks. Teams are better off just paying their franchise players to end any problems, Bailey/Portis is probably the only deal for one that ended up benefiting both teams.

You're right. If the trade offer wasn't real, then this is all just hot air.

In this way, you're correct. You cannot assign the traditional value to draft picks with Snyderrato picking lol. But, since I'm playing s***house GM here, I have to go by the conventional wisdom.

Yeah, but the Jets were throwing the Skins spare parts frankly. If they offered the Skins John Abraham or another young quality player and a 2nd, this is a different story.

When you consider the conventional stupidity out of our FO, I guess we're lucky that they didn't trade Bailey for a pez dispenser with the Incredible Hulk's head on it lol.

I was pulling to get Dockett hard in that draft, BTW. I would have used one of my 2nd round picks on him and not thought twice about it.

I think considering the circumstances with Chump, getting a RB who's produced like Portis has was worth the trouble. Even giving up a 2nd.

Goskins11

10-31-2009, 10:21 AM

how many times have the redskins been to the playoffs in the past 15 years? how many of those times was gibbs the HC.?just about all of them. He shares no blame. It's all on vinny and danny. They are just a joke.

Nomad

10-31-2009, 01:57 PM

Gibbs drafted Campbell and anointed him the QB of the future.

In my opinion, this was the single most damaging move he made. And it is hurting us big time.

I agree, BUT Gibbs drafted Campbell for a different offensive system his skills matched.

Nomad

10-31-2009, 02:16 PM

Champ bailey said publicly for months leading up to his free agency that he never was going to resign with the skins for any amount of money. So, the trade is Clinton portis for a high 2nd. Thats a steal for a Rb who's gotten over 6000 yards since coming to DC.

Then you franchise him and wait until you get a good trade offer. No, it isn't a steal, and you have no credibility on this point. You're the same guy that called the Taylor trade a good move at the time. And your revisionism aside, the trade was Champ Bailey and a 2nd for Portis.

It is not all Portis' fault, as he has never been used properly or had a real passing game, but Bailey went to like 8 Pro Bowls in a row, Portis has rarely made explosive plays since coming here. There are options with disgruntled players, besides just caving. Shutdown corners are one of rarest commodities in football, only our bungling FO gets hosed in trading one.

Portis is a complete back and has heart, but look at all the picks we invested in the secondary since trading Bailey. 3 top 10 picks. And they still get toasted on plays like the long touchdown run in Philly game. The trade should have been Bailey for Portis and a 2nd. Denver fleeced us in that trade just like Parcells did in the Taylor trade and every team that trades with us does.

akhhorus

10-31-2009, 03:03 PM

Then you franchise him and wait until you get a good trade offer.

Thats what the Skins did, and they only got 1 trade offer(Portis) for Bailey. So, whats your complaint other than your continuing campaign against reality?

No, it isn't a steal, and you have no credibility on this point. You're the same guy that called the Taylor trade a good move at the time.

Taylor mysteriously rebounded when he got away from Blache. He has 5.5 sacks this season so far. And my comments on the Taylor deal have nothing to do with the fact that Bailey wasn't staying, so the trade was effectively Portis for a high 2nd.

And your revisionism aside, the trade was Champ Bailey and a 2nd for Portis.

No, it was the rights to Champ Bailey and a 2nd for Portis, and considering that Bailey said he wasn't going to stay with the skins, the Skins got Portis for a 2nd.

It is not all Portis' fault, as he has never been used properly or had a real passing game

And yet, only 1 Rb has more yards than him since 2004.

but Bailey went to like 8 Pro Bowls in a row, Portis has rarely made explosive plays since coming here. There are options with disgruntled players, besides just caving. Shutdown corners are one of rarest commodities in football, only our bungling FO gets hosed in trading one.

Who said publicly multiple times that he wasn't staying. I guess that if the skins just kept franchise tagging Bailey each year(assuming that they could do that), you would be whining about how the skins were tying up so much cap room to force Bailey to stay.

Portis is a complete back and has heart, but look at all the picks we invested in the secondary since trading Bailey. 3 top 10 picks. And they still get toasted on plays like the long touchdown run in Philly game. The trade should have been Bailey for Portis and a 2nd. Denver fleeced us in that trade just like Parcells did in the Taylor trade and every team that trades with us does.

2 of those top 10 picks were safeties(and only one of those 2 is still on the team), so your latest complaint makes no sense.

44 goes 50 gut

10-31-2009, 03:30 PM

I agree, BUT Gibbs drafted Campbell for a different offensive system his skills matched.

I couldn't agree more. Campbell is a down field passer, His confidence problems, and/or an inability to keep up with the speed of NFL (a little of both IMO) seem magnified under Zorn. Campbell was who Gibbs liked but he fit Gibbs run heavy playaction long passing style. So did Mark Rypien, how did he fair in other offenses?.

Campbell looked better for Gibbs even in his limited play time, than he has in the short passing and timing pass based WCO. I'm guessing he threw little to no timing passes in his career. One of his worst traits that is not often discussed is his terrible accuracy on timing passes... I'd guess that has a lot to do with the fact that they can be hard to distinguish from typical read progression passing.

I would say his inaccuracy on those passing plays stems from a lack of confidence in himself, his inability to make quick decisive reads, and trust that his receiver will get to the ball... A timing pass is a snap decision, the only read made is before the snap (you want a passive zone or a run blitz), and then a quick "throw or overthrow decision AS the QB winds up. In most systems, if the coverage turns out to be wrong or the rout is jumped (such as tight man or bump coverage which will throw the timing off) the QB is supposed to throw it over the head of the WR to avoid potential interceptions.

(incidentally a lot of "what the hell was he throwing to" comments are made on timing passes.)

Skins7ny

10-31-2009, 03:44 PM

ramsey was not ruined by anyone.. he simply has lacked the vision to see the field adequately and find the open receiver. that excuse is just as much a cop out as saying that Campbells performance THIS year is a result of all those different offensive schemes he has had to play under.. that is a crock, IMHO

as smart as Ramsey is and as much courage as he had, he lacks something upstairs ... i can remember Eddie Mason commenting how often PR failed to see open receivers..
I disagree. You cannot separate the rookie/2nd - year QB from his environment. Ramsey was chosen by a regime that forced him upon his head coach, who preferred his two hand-picked Florida QBs, Matthews and Weurfel. His head coach was a QB/offensive "Genius" who had no idea how to run an offense at the NFL level, and kept going back and forth between his Florida QBs and Ramsey. Ramsey had to run for his life on almost every play, because his coach did not believe in protecting the QB and sent everyone out on routes. And his leade running back his rookie year was Trung Canidate. Despite that, Ramsey's stats were quite good check them out. Very few QBs, even Hall-Of-Famers, throw more TDs than INTs their first year or two, and Ramsey did it. With Rod Gardner (who dropped a game-winning TD v. the Giants that Ramsey put right in his chest) as his main target. If his field vision was that bad, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

When Ramsey finally got a professional head coach, who believed in having a strong-armed passer and protecting him, Gibbs replaced him sight unseen with a barely fuctional veteran. Ramsey learned how to be a high-percentage, low risk QB under Gibbs, doing everything Gibbs asked of him. It may be arguable, but IMO Gibbs never really gave Ramsey a fair shot. Ramsey was admired and respected by his teammates for his toughness, arm strength and for never throwing his teammates under the bus when they (frequently) missed blocks and dropped passes.

Like Ramsey, Campbell came into a dysfunctional organization that has not known what to do with him. They have changed coordinators and systems on him repeatedly, invested nothing in protecting him, and given him the worst receiving corps in the league (at least the bottom 3). They have done almost nothing to help him succeed, and actually have undermined him (some times on purpose) at every turn.

Shally, do you think that if Tom Brady had been thrown into Ramsey's shoes that he would be a successful QB? Reasonable minds may differ, but I don't see it.
Then you franchise him and wait until you get a good trade offer. No, it isn't a steal, and you have no credibility on this point. You're the same guy that called the Taylor trade a good move at the time. And your revisionism aside, the trade was Champ Bailey and a 2nd for Portis.

It is not all Portis' fault, as he has never been used properly or had a real passing game, but Bailey went to like 8 Pro Bowls in a row, Portis has rarely made explosive plays since coming here. There are options with disgruntled players, besides just caving. Shutdown corners are one of rarest commodities in football, only our bungling FO gets hosed in trading one.

Portis is a complete back and has heart, but look at all the picks we invested in the secondary since trading Bailey. 3 top 10 picks. And they still get toasted on plays like the long touchdown run in Philly game. The trade should have been Bailey for Portis and a 2nd. Denver fleeced us in that trade just like Parcells did in the Taylor trade and every team that trades with us does.
+1. Excellent post.
If by "falling over backwards" you mean "he's a polished player with some upside" and giving the move a B I believe. And you criticize just about every move just to be sure lol. And we went over this earlier in the thread, but Rocky's stats compare favorably to a guy like Ernie Sims, who's seen as a talented player.
No, by "falling over backwards" I mean who defended trading 3 picks, including 2 2nd-rounders for a player with a history of bad knees who wasn't considered one of the top 3 LBs in the draft. In fact. they probably made the trade prematurely, looking for D'Qwell Jackson, and got beaten to the punch for him by Cleveland. They may not even have made the trade if f they knew they were going to wind up with McIntosh, but of course we'll neve know.

You and I used to have hellacious arguments about the McIntosh trade, and you went way beyond a dispassionate lukewarm endorsement. You passionately and obnoxiously defended the trade, until you made the argument (against me, naturally) last year that 2nd - round picks weren't valuable and cited Rocky as an example.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd admit it.
Ramsey had a much better Oline than Campbell has now and two decent WRs and compared to Santana Moss once a month and drek. Campbell did have a much better running game. But the stat comparison between Campbell and Ramsey isn't even close, Ramsey took sacks like it was going out of style(1 for every 11 pass attempts in DC I believe).
You are utterly ignoring the fact that the Skins OL, which was missing 2 starters by the end of the year, was frequently being forced to block 7 and 8 guys, because Spurrier did not believe in keepin in receiver to block. I don't care how in his prime Chris Samuels is, asking 5 to block 7 or 8 is a recipe for a high sack frequency. Do you remember those sacks? Many of them were jailbreaks, and Ramsey didn't even have time to look up. By mid-year Spurrier had stopped caring, yet Ramsey still managed to throw 14 TDs and only 9 INTs in something like 11 games. Which looks a lot better in retrospect.
If Betts had 490 yards and a 4.1 ypc through 7 games with a disaster area at Oline, I wouldn't be calling for him to be replaced. And I'd love to know how Portis is to blame when he has an Oline without a functional offensive tackle and a RG who is useless.
It is clear to everybody but you that Portis has lost his accelleration and speed. He has not been good as seeing holes in 2-3 years, and he has been unable to accelerate through the holes he sees for about the same length of time. On those extremely rare occasions when he does break free, he cannot outrun secondary defenders and does even bother trying to make a cut to evade them or try bowling them over. He is a pededstrian nacl at this point in his career. You can keep citing his yardage total, but our eyes don't lie. His yardage totals are a product of his number of carries, not his skill in making the most out of his runs.

Of course, maybe his speed, stamina and ability to see the holes that are open for him would be enhanced if he'd drag his ass to practice every once in a while and worked out in the offseason.

Good thing we switched to a zone blocking scheme a few games into 2004, no? And saying that 'very good Rbs are a dime a dozen' is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said in your time here. Merely good Rbs are easy to find. Rbs who average over 1000 yards a season over long stretches are almost impossible to find. In fact there's only 5 other Rbs who've averaged 1000 yards a season since 2004: Tomlinson, Thomas Jones, Steve Jackson, Edge James and Jamal Lewis. And only LDT has more yards than Portis does in that time period I believe.

No we didn't. We incorporated some zone blocking into our sceheme in 2004, but we did not change our scheme wholesale. Finding a RB to run for 1000 for 5 straight years (which Portis has not done) is not necessary-it can be two or three guys doing it over that span, like the Giants, Bucs, Saints, Steelers, etc.

Considering that even if I was pretending that Bailey was a throw in couldn't be a counterfactual in any way, shape or form, you're not making any sense again. There haven't been any other players who said multiple times(which were discussed here) who said publicly that they were not going to resign with the Skins, begged not to be franchise tagged and refuse to discuss extensions with the skins. So, unless you can prove that it was all a bargaining tactic, you're talking out your ass.
Lots of guys over the years, franchised and non, have sworn they would never re-sign with their team, and have done so. In most other contexts, you respond to this type of argument by saying it is speculation and we don't really know and you can't go by what people say. Now, when it suits your argument, you say the opposite. That is weak.

Keino

10-31-2009, 04:22 PM

I disagree. You cannot separate the rookie/2nd - year QB from his environment. Ramsey was chosen by a regime that forced him upon his head coach, who preferred his two hand-picked Florida QBs, Matthews and Weurfel. His head coach was a QB/offensive "Genius" who had no idea how to run an offense at the NFL level, and kept going back and forth between his Florida QBs and Ramsey. Ramsey had to run for his life on almost every play, because his coach did not believe in protecting the QB and sent everyone out on routes. And his leade running back his rookie year was Trung Canidate. Despite that, Ramsey's stats were quite good check them out. Very few QBs, even Hall-Of-Famers, throw more TDs than INTs their first year or two, and Ramsey did it. With Rod Gardner (who dropped a game-winning TD v. the Giants that Ramsey put right in his chest) as his main target. If his field vision was that bad, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

When Ramsey finally got a professional head coach, who believed in having a strong-armed passer and protecting him, Gibbs replaced him sight unseen with a barely fuctional veteran. Ramsey learned how to be a high-percentage, low risk QB under Gibbs, doing everything Gibbs asked of him. It may be arguable, but IMO Gibbs never really gave Ramsey a fair shot. Ramsey was admired and respected by his teammates for his toughness, arm strength and for never throwing his teammates under the bus when they (frequently) missed blocks and dropped passes.

No, this is full of inaccuracies, I don't know where to begin. Ramesy was not replaced sight unseen. He was asked to, in an open competition, compete for the starting spot. He lost that competition and was subsequently named as back-up. When he was appointed starter headed into the next season, he looked even worse than prior to that season. In fact Gibbs gave him every opportunity to succeed and he failed miserably.

It's funny you mention a Giants game because I seem to remember losing to the Giants by 6 and Ramsey throwing 3 INTs in Giants territory and they were't good coverage INTs they were of the "Did he seriously just throw that there" variety thereby costing us 9-21 potential points. I won't even mention the Eagles game were a wide-open Lav. Coles is waiting for the game winning catch and our fearless Javelin thrower chucked the ball into the stands like Perseus.

The notion that Ramsey didn't get a fair shot under Gibbs is nothing short of ridiculous.

Skins7ny

10-31-2009, 09:09 PM

No, this is full of inaccuracies, I don't know where to begin. Ramesy was not replaced sight unseen. He was asked to, in an open competition, compete for the starting spot. He lost that competition and was subsequently named as back-up. When he was appointed starter headed into the next season, he looked even worse than prior to that season. In fact Gibbs gave him every opportunity to succeed and he failed miserably.

It's funny you mention a Giants game because I seem to remember losing to the Giants by 6 and Ramsey throwing 3 INTs in Giants territory and they were't good coverage INTs they were of the "Did he seriously just throw that there" variety thereby costing us 9-21 potential points. I won't even mention the Eagles game were a wide-open Lav. Coles is waiting for the game winning catch and our fearless Javelin thrower chucked the ball into the stands like Perseus.

The notion that Ramsey didn't get a fair shot under Gibbs is nothing short of ridiculous.

1. Gibbs was named head coach in January. He traded for Brunell in early March. There were no games and no practices in Jan or Feb. Hence, sight unseen. Is it possible that Gibbs looked at game film on Ramsey before making the decision to dump him? Yes, I would hope so. But for all of Gibbs' talents, and there were many, he never liked to place his team in the hands of a young QB.
2. It is funny that you mention the 3 INTs in the Giants game. Ramsey had only thrown one to that point, and marched the team down the field on an impressive drive. He hit Gardner in the numbers for the go-ahead TD, only to have 50-50 drop the ball. On the next play, Ramsey threw the 2nd interception. The 3rd INT happened at the end of the game when we we heaving the ball downfield in desperation. The 2nd INT was a bad throw, but you cannot pin the 3rd one on Ramsey.
There is a very fine line in the NFL betwee success and failure. If Gardner catches that pass, the story is that Ramsey brought the team back against the hated Giants with the game on the line and re-established our ability to win against our NFC East rivals. And perhaps Ramsey has bought himself enough cache with his coaches, the FO and Redskins fans to make replaceing him less necessary. You can say that he shouldn't have thrown the 2nd pick, and I agree, but there is no queestion that if Gardner holds on to that perfect pass, the story is different. Confidence and momentum play large roles in a team's season, and that drop was huge.
3. Are you saying that Brunell never missed an open WR? Campbell? Heck, even Williams, Theismann and Rypien in 1991 missed an open receiver or two. Pointing to one game where he missed an open receiver tells us nothing.
4. Ramsey outplayed Brunell in training camp in both 2004 and 2005. Brunell was simply terrible, he was putting up numbers that were downright embarrasing. That is why, even through Gibbs clearly had committed to winning with Brunell, Gibbs had to replace Brunell with Ramsey in 2004, and why Gibbs had to anoint Ramsey the starter coming out of training camp in 2005.
Gibbs pulled Ramsey after less than one-half of football in the opening game. If you think tha tis a fair shot, you are delusional. Or you have a very liberal interpretation of the term "fair shot". Most starting QBs get a few games to play themselves out of a starting job. And I would suggeest that Ramsey's knowledge (along with the team's and the entire DC metro areas' knowledge) that this wasn't really his team, it was Brunell's team. didn't help Ramsey seize the reins and make it his team.

akhhorus

10-31-2009, 09:36 PM

No, by "falling over backwards" I mean who defended trading 3 picks, including 2 2nd-rounders for a player with a history of bad knees who wasn't considered one of the top 3 LBs in the draft. In fact. they probably made the trade prematurely, looking for D'Qwell Jackson, and got beaten to the punch for him by Cleveland. They may not even have made the trade if f they knew they were going to wind up with McIntosh, but of course we'll neve know.

No, they made the trade after D'qwell was taken, but your "top 3 Lbs in the draft" standard is just retrospective horsecrap unless you would trade multiple 2nds for top flight talent, which means that results matter and not the concept of trading away picks.

You and I used to have hellacious arguments about the McIntosh trade, and you went way beyond a dispassionate lukewarm endorsement.

There's never been an argument I've had with you that I would call "hellacious" or even passionate, sorry. Its easy to pop your balloons.

You passionately and obnoxiously defended the trade, until you made the argument (against me, naturally) last year that 2nd - round picks weren't valuable and cited Rocky as an example.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd admit it.

The only post I can find that fits your description is my post in response to your listing players we should have taken over Rocky here:
http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1118305&postcount=134

Unless I can't read my own postings, I don't say anything about how 2nd round picks aren't valuable nor did I cite Rocky as an example. In another thread I brought up hypothetical question of would Gibbs draft him with that 2nd knowing his career arc. Thats it. So, please show what post you are referring to, or apologize.

You are utterly ignoring the fact that the Skins OL, which was missing 2 starters by the end of the year, was frequently being forced to block 7 and 8 guys, because Spurrier did not believe in keepin in receiver to block. I don't care how in his prime Chris Samuels is, asking 5 to block 7 or 8 is a recipe for a high sack frequency. Do you remember those sacks? Many of them were jailbreaks, and Ramsey didn't even have time to look up. By mid-year Spurrier had stopped caring, yet Ramsey still managed to throw 14 TDs and only 9 INTs in something like 11 games. Which looks a lot better in retrospect.

And what is Campbell facing now? He has a line without a functional pass blocker currently. Ramsey's 2003 line was much better, even with their injuries. And in that final year of Spurrier's, Ramsey was just godawful. He took 30 sacks in 11 starts and only had a couple games worth a damn. He had a QB rating that year of 75, Campbell--who's been pretty bad this year--has a rating of 85.8 as a reference.

It is clear to everybody but you that Portis has lost his accelleration and speed. He has not been good as seeing holes in 2-3 years, and he has been unable to accelerate through the holes he sees for about the same length of time. On those extremely rare occasions when he does break free, he cannot outrun secondary defenders and does even bother trying to make a cut to evade them or try bowling them over. He is a pededstrian nacl at this point in his career. You can keep citing his yardage total, but our eyes don't lie. His yardage totals are a product of his number of carries, not his skill in making the most out of his runs.

Of course, maybe his speed, stamina and ability to see the holes that are open for him would be enhanced if he'd drag his ass to practice every once in a while and worked out in the offseason.

His ypc is 4.1, which is only .2 worse than last year(.2 better than 2007) and he has his longest run of his career(78 yards) without Samuels at LT. So your comments aren't backed up by the facts.

No we didn't. We incorporated some zone blocking into our sceheme in 2004, but we did not change our scheme wholesale.

No, you're absolutely wrong here. After portis complained about Gibbs' counter scheme in 2004, they switched over to the zone block scheme and by 2005, thats all they were running(and all they have run since then).

Finding a RB to run for 1000 for 5 straight years (which Portis has not done) is not necessary-it can be two or three guys doing it over that span, like the Giants, Bucs, Saints, Steelers, etc.

And all those teams(except the Steelers) have had to commit major money to their RBs(even the supposed committee back teams) to get similar or marginally better production(the Saints never had a better rushing attack yardage wise from 2004-2008 btw). The biggest gaps in team rushing between the skins and any of those teams you list were the Giants/Skins in 2008(but the skins had 2000 yards rushing that year) and the Steelers/Skins in 2004.

Yet while Portis has made roughly about 6 million a year during his time with the skins, thats less than the Giants are paying Brandon Jacobs(8.25 million a year average) or what they paid Tiki Barber(about 6-7 million a year) or what the Saints are paying Reggie bush(10 million a year average), is about the same as what the Bucs have paid Cadillac Williams(6 million a year) and is about the same as what the Steelers paid Staley+Bettis in 2004/2005. They did get a bargain on Parker from 2006-on, but he's been very inconsistent with his production.

Lots of guys over the years, franchised and non, have sworn they would never re-sign with their team, and have done so. In most other contexts, you respond to this type of argument by saying it is speculation and we don't really know and you can't go by what people say. Now, when it suits your argument, you say the opposite. That is weak.

Name one player who was as public with his opposition for staying with a team, even saying it openly on interview shows that he wasn't going to stay, refused to even discuss an extension and signed a long term extension anyways. The only one I can think of who refused to negotiate with his team was Asomugha, but he never--as far as I know--publicly said he wanted out. Plenty of franchise players have complained about being tagged, but no-one was as public about leaving as Champ was in 2004.

akhhorus

10-31-2009, 09:40 PM

4. Ramsey outplayed Brunell in training camp in both 2004 and 2005. Brunell was simply terrible, he was putting up numbers that were downright embarrasing. That is why, even through Gibbs clearly had committed to winning with Brunell, Gibbs had to replace Brunell with Ramsey in 2004, and why Gibbs had to anoint Ramsey the starter coming out of training camp in 2005.
Gibbs pulled Ramsey after less than one-half of football in the opening game. If you think tha tis a fair shot, you are delusional. Or you have a very liberal interpretation of the term "fair shot". Most starting QBs get a few games to play themselves out of a starting job. And I would suggeest that Ramsey's knowledge (along with the team's and the entire DC metro areas' knowledge) that this wasn't really his team, it was Brunell's team. didn't help Ramsey seize the reins and make it his team.

I forgot that you were a Ramsey apologist lol. Its hilarious that you will make any excuse for just terrible players lol.

And as for his benching: Ramsey got hurt from a Lance Briggs hit after posting a "fantastic" 8-11 for 105 yards with 2 sacks, an INT and 2 fumbles(one lost) in about 1.5 quarters after a godawful preseason.

Fathead

11-01-2009, 02:06 AM

Wow, a rare species, the Ramsey Apologist is among us.

Keino

11-01-2009, 07:46 AM

1. Gibbs was named head coach in January. He traded for Brunell in early March. There were no games and no practices in Jan or Feb. Hence, sight unseen. Is it possible that Gibbs looked at game film on Ramsey before making the decision to dump him? Yes, I would hope so. But for all of Gibbs' talents, and there were many, he never liked to place his team in the hands of a young QB.
2. It is funny that you mention the 3 INTs in the Giants game. Ramsey had only thrown one to that point, and marched the team down the field on an impressive drive. He hit Gardner in the numbers for the go-ahead TD, only to have 50-50 drop the ball. On the next play, Ramsey threw the 2nd interception. The 3rd INT happened at the end of the game when we we heaving the ball downfield in desperation. The 2nd INT was a bad throw, but you cannot pin the 3rd one on Ramsey.
There is a very fine line in the NFL betwee success and failure. If Gardner catches that pass, the story is that Ramsey brought the team back against the hated Giants with the game on the line and re-established our ability to win against our NFC East rivals. And perhaps Ramsey has bought himself enough cache with his coaches, the FO and Redskins fans to make replaceing him less necessary. You can say that he shouldn't have thrown the 2nd pick, and I agree, but there is no queestion that if Gardner holds on to that perfect pass, the story is different. Confidence and momentum play large roles in a team's season, and that drop was huge.
3. Are you saying that Brunell never missed an open WR? Campbell? Heck, even Williams, Theismann and Rypien in 1991 missed an open receiver or two. Pointing to one game where he missed an open receiver tells us nothing.
4. Ramsey outplayed Brunell in training camp in both 2004 and 2005. Brunell was simply terrible, he was putting up numbers that were downright embarrasing. That is why, even through Gibbs clearly had committed to winning with Brunell, Gibbs had to replace Brunell with Ramsey in 2004, and why Gibbs had to anoint Ramsey the starter coming out of training camp in 2005.
Gibbs pulled Ramsey after less than one-half of football in the opening game. If you think tha tis a fair shot, you are delusional. Or you have a very liberal interpretation of the term "fair shot". Most starting QBs get a few games to play themselves out of a starting job. And I would suggeest that Ramsey's knowledge (along with the team's and the entire DC metro areas' knowledge) that this wasn't really his team, it was Brunell's team. didn't help Ramsey seize the reins and make it his team.

1. Despite the Brunell acquisition there was an open competition for the starting job. Ramsey lost, clearly, if pre-season performances are any indication (and they are) of performance.

2. You characterization of the 3rd interception as "hail-mary-esque" is inaccurate. We were driving and there was time on the clock. There was no need for a desperate heave where there are no Redskins receivers within 10 yards of the ball. There is but one person to pin that INT on, the guy who threw it.

3. I said no such thing, but Brunell, in his short time with us has a record of coming up with big plays in clutch situations (Miracle in Dallas anyone, set-up by Brunell's 4th down scamper and 2 perfect passes), while Ramsey in the same situations choked.

4. Based on what? Ramsey outplayed Brunell in neither training camp or pre-season from what I saw. Especially in 2005 when Ramsey was appointed starter (something that would not have happened if he weren't given a fair shot). The notion that Ramsey outplayed Brunell in 2004 under open competition situations OR in 2005 as the starter is pure revisionist history.

Ramsey was hurt and left the game while we were losing. The offense moved better under Brunell and based on the awful pre-season, and the awful 1.5 quarters prior to injury and the fact that in the end we had the best seasons since 1999 under Brunell, it was the right decision to make. One could argue that this decision alone got us to the playoffs and had us winning in Dallas the next week. When a player is allowed to compete for the job, that by definition is a "Fair shot". When said player is then appointed starter headed into the off-season, again, that is clearly a Fair shot. Any excuse as to why he didn't sieze the opportunities presented to him really aren't relevant. He had a fair shot and failed. That's completely on him, not Gibbs.

skinfan43

11-01-2009, 11:39 AM

i think the fact that Gibbs got the team to the playoffs twice in his second go-round is a minor miracle.
I'd almost kill for that team that won 5 in a row to make it into the playoffs... THAT team played with guts even with moderate talent.

Someday again... hopefully with more talent, better coaching, and less owner.

Best week of this season yet.

Pretty sad times for us.

Every one of us definitely feels each other's pain, I'm sure... hope y'all have a nice day.

BandWagon

11-01-2009, 08:02 PM

Based on what I saw pre-Gibbs and now post-Gibbs. What Joe accomplished here is nothing short of miraculous.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 06:49 AM

It was not Gibbs who traded a 2nd rounder for Jason Taylor. Phil Loadholt of Oklahoma was the starting right tackle for Minnesota yesterday. Had we not done the stupid trade for Taylor we could have used our 2nd rounder on Loadholt and sured up the right tackle spot for the next decade. Also Duke Robinson ( Guard- 6-5 332 lbs) was selected last spring shortly after we selected Cody Glenn. Anyone see Cody Glenn on our roster? This all falls squarly on Vinny and Danny for keeping Vinny around.

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 07:47 AM

Moe

11-02-2009, 09:11 AM

Thats what the Skins did, and they only got 1 trade offer(Portis) for Bailey. So, whats your complaint other than your continuing campaign against reality?

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I thought that Bailey and Arrington both came up for new contracts at the same time, or within a year of each other, and it came down to the Skins only being able to afford to keep one of them. At that point Arrrington was still the face of the team, it was clear that Bailey would cost more and then when he went public stating he wanted out, that sealed the deal. Am I crazy or is the timing seem right to others?

There was also the rumor circulating that Bailey got busted sticking his hand in the cookie jar and that the impetus for him wanting out was driven by an ultimatum from his wife.

BurgundyNGold

11-02-2009, 09:14 AM

Redskinmayhem

11-02-2009, 09:16 AM

I believe you are correct about this. Except it wasn't his hand.

and it wasn't exactly a cookie jar...or was it?!?!:smash:

Moe

11-02-2009, 09:20 AM

I believe you are correct about this. Except it wasn't his hand.

;)

BurgundyNGold

11-02-2009, 09:30 AM

and it wasn't exactly a cookie jar...or was it?!?!:smash:
LMAO! Nookie jar? :whoknows:

lorimike

11-02-2009, 09:49 AM

Thats the thing, they had plenty of picks to address a major need headed into the draft. Why would they take a RT if they had their 2nd back? They passed on a ton of tackles throughout the draft.

You're probably right. Everyone in Redskin nation knew we needed offensive lineman except Vinny. But we didn't have a 2nd rounder thanks to another stupid trade. I guess the proof is that we passed on Duke Robinson in round 5 and took Cody Glenn who was a reach at that point in the draft. Not that Robinson is going to be a good pro offensive guard. But he did make the panthers roster.

BurgundyNGold

11-02-2009, 10:19 AM

You're probably right. Everyone in Redskin nation knew we needed offensive lineman except Vinny. But we didn't have a 2nd rounder thanks to another stupid trade. I guess the proof is that we passed on Duke Robinson in round 5 and took Cody Glenn who was a reach at that point in the draft. Not that Robinson is going to be a good pro offensive guard. But he did make the panthers roster.
I couldn't agree more with this assessment. Who the **** is Cody Glenn? Why would you even draft this guy? He has UDFA written all over him. And you can definitely get a solid C or G in the 5th. I was doubly befuddled with the Glenn selection for that reason. Glenn was a bad pick before Vinny even mande the call. What made it worse was that there were OL value picks still on the board (like Robinson).

shally

11-02-2009, 10:32 AM

I couldn't agree more with this assessment. Who the **** is Cody Glenn? Why would you even draft this guy? He has UDFA written all over him. And you can definitely get a solid C or G in the 5th. I was doubly befuddled with the Glenn selection for that reason. Glenn was a bad pick before Vinny even mande the call. What made it worse was that there were OL value picks still on the board (like Robinson).

neither henson nor glenn has contributed anything this season, and the odds are that even henson wont.. Vinny should be made to walk the plank for that kind of malfeasence

hail2skins

11-02-2009, 10:45 AM

Yes Danny did learn...he learned how to continue the same behavior that Gibbs bought in to Win NOW..that was the only mentality that they had...as opposed to building of the future.

Gibbs did not show Dan how to build for thw future which was what HE (Gibbs knew how to do because he saw it first hand in Beatherd)....

He doesn't get a pass from me...why it is that the Skins are scoring little to no points, because GIBBS incorporated that into the mentality of the team...score 17 points and play good defense, we often talk about lack of execution because Gibbs never made the offense accountable....

But it seems mighty funny how GW did and Gibbs had no problem with that...Joe, you think Gibbs knows how to build teams? Show me some proof of that? Gibbs did not build teams in the past. He was provided with players and he coached them up. I believe everyone knew that Gibbs didn't come here to build a team for the future. Why else would he bring Brunell with him.

Snyder and Vinny weren't even building for the future prior to Gibbs arrival.

Gibbs must be a powerful voice in the force, if he still has control over how many points the Skins score in a WCO. I think I will refer to him as Darth Gibbs - the Sith of low points.

hail2skins

11-02-2009, 10:47 AM

dj_stouty

11-02-2009, 10:50 AM

Joe, you think Gibbs knows how to build teams? Show me some proof of that? Gibbs did not build teams in the past. He was provided with players and he coached them up. I believe everyone knew that Gibbs didn't come here to build a team for the future. Why else would he bring Brunell with him.

Snyder and Vinny weren't even building for the future prior to Gibbs arrival.

Correct. The mantra of this team since Danny's first day had NOTHING to do with building a franchise for the future. It has always been about winning NOW. This has been evident by the Redskins FO neglecting depth each and every year through free agency and the draft.

"Win now" rarely works...and only if all of your starters can stay healthy for the entire which doesn't happen very often in the NFL. Its a flawed way to view the NFL and it fits Danny's impatient attitude.

shally

11-02-2009, 10:58 AM

Gibbs did NOT build teams in the past. He COACHED them.

i think that towards the end of Gibbs1.0, when Beathard had been pushed out the door, and Casserly was too weak to say NO, Gibbs had a ton of influence in personnel.. the trade up for Desmond Howard was Gibbs error all the way, from what i have read.. made over Casserly's objections

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 11:00 AM

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but I thought that Bailey and Arrington both came up for new contracts at the same time, or within a year of each other, and it came down to the Skins only being able to afford to keep one of them. At that point Arrrington was still the face of the team, it was clear that Bailey would cost more and then when he went public stating he wanted out, that sealed the deal. Am I crazy or is the timing seem right to others?

There was also the rumor circulating that Bailey got busted sticking his hand in the cookie jar and that the impetus for him wanting out was driven by an ultimatum from his wife.

I've heard that rumor, but I don't believe it.

Arrington signed a 6 year deal in 2000(as did Samuels) so neither one was due for a couple years, they could have afforded to keep all three of Bailey, Samuels and Arrington with long term deal based on the contracts they handed out to guys like Springs(who they wouldn't have signed for a 30 million contract if they kept Bailey), Samuels and Arrington(the skins could have franchise tagged Arrington and probably saved some money on him). Even if they had to front load Bailey's deal so they could reduce his cap charge when Arrington came up, they could have pulled it off.

You're probably right. Everyone in Redskin nation knew we needed offensive lineman except Vinny. But we didn't have a 2nd rounder thanks to another stupid trade. I guess the proof is that we passed on Duke Robinson in round 5 and took Cody Glenn who was a reach at that point in the draft. Not that Robinson is going to be a good pro offensive guard. But he did make the panthers roster.

If they had that second, they would have probably dealt it to the Browns for Sanchez(and watching Sanchez now, thank bob we didn't do that). The skins, despite all their comments now, clearly didn't think that OL was a priority during the offseason. They probably figured that Heyer and Mike Williams would emerge at RT and that Samuels wouldn't go down again, so they passed on Oher and dozens of other young guys who would be contributing now. Only now when their moves look stupid are they claiming that "they tried."

hail2skins

11-02-2009, 11:01 AM

i think that towards the end of Gibbs1.0, when Beathard had been pushed out the door, and Casserly was too weak to say NO, Gibbs had a ton of influence in personnel.. the trade up for Desmond Howard was Gibbs error all the way, from what i have read.. made over Casserly's objectionsHe still did not build teams and was never accused of being a good talent evaluator.

shally

11-02-2009, 11:10 AM

He still did not build teams and was never accused of being a good talent evaluator.

that we agree on.. so for folks who want to see the return of Gibbs inthe "Parcells" role of team president, and chief talent scout, all i can say is "be careful what you wish for"...

Gibbs is not in Parcells or Jimmy Johnson's class as an evaluator of talent, regardless of whose bust is in Canton....

Fathead

11-02-2009, 11:17 AM

that we agree on.. so for folks who want to see the return of Gibbs inthe "Parcells" role of team president, and chief talent scout, all i can say is "be careful what you wish for"...

Gibbs is not in Parcells or Jimmy Johnson's class as an evaluator of talent, regardless of whose bust is in Canton....

Where Gibbs had talent was in preparation and getting his guys to execute properly on the field. He outworked and outclassed opponents. His talent evaluation was always middle of the pack.

shally

11-02-2009, 11:33 AM

BurgundyNGold

11-02-2009, 12:01 PM

Where Gibbs had talent was in preparation and getting his guys to execute properly on the field. He outworked and outclassed opponents. His talent evaluation was always middle of the pack.
Tat's true. But he's never done that full time either. Since the guy is a winner in everything, I think that we would have a first class front office and talent group within 2 or 3 years of his being a GM.

That said, Gibbs would be stupid to come back here in any capacity.

BurgundyNGold

11-02-2009, 12:02 PM

and, yet, he convinced Cooke to let Beathard go to consolidate his own power
I don't think that Gibbs had Beathard fired. I think Beathard left of his own accord. He wanted to move back West to surf lol.

hail2skins

11-02-2009, 01:09 PM

and, yet, he convinced Cooke to let Beathard go to consolidate his own powerI don't understand where this is coming from at all.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 02:55 PM

Then you franchise him and wait until you get a good trade offer. No, it isn't a steal, and you have no credibility on this point. You're the same guy that called the Taylor trade a good move at the time. And your revisionism aside, the trade was Champ Bailey and a 2nd for Portis.

It is not all Portis' fault, as he has never been used properly or had a real passing game, but Bailey went to like 8 Pro Bowls in a row, Portis has rarely made explosive plays since coming here. There are options with disgruntled players, besides just caving. Shutdown corners are one of rarest commodities in football, only our bungling FO gets hosed in trading one.

Portis is a complete back and has heart, but look at all the picks we invested in the secondary since trading Bailey. 3 top 10 picks. And they still get toasted on plays like the long touchdown run in Philly game. The trade should have been Bailey for Portis and a 2nd. Denver fleeced us in that trade just like Parcells did in the Taylor trade and every team that trades with us does.

Great post. I totally agree. It's always us trading a player and a pick. Never the other way around.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 03:01 PM

Two 3rds for TJ Ducket? another stupid knee jerk reactionary trade. Was it Gibbs' fault or Vinnys'

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 03:14 PM

Great post. I totally agree. It's always us trading a player and a pick. Never the other way around.

The problem is that there were no credible reports of any other offers the skins got for Bailey. So, unless you wanted the skins to constantly to choke the cap by repeatedly franchise tagging Bailey(which they might not have been able to do in 2004) or wanted to see Champ walk for nothing, I don't see what other options the skins had. And they did get a great Rb out of it.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 04:20 PM

The problem is that there were no credible reports of any other offers the skins got for Bailey. So, unless you wanted the skins to constantly to choke the cap by repeatedly franchise tagging Bailey(which they might not have been able to do in 2004) or wanted to see Champ walk for nothing, I don't see what other options the skins had. And they did get a great Rb out of it.

I wish the trade was Portis for Champ. Straight up. many picks do not pan out but we could have used that 2nd rounder to sure up another position.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 04:24 PM

Here is a link to the 2nd round of the 2004 draft. Had we kept the 2nd we gave up for Bailey we could have found a player in there.

http://www.drafthistory.com/years/2004.html

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 04:26 PM

I wish the trade was Portis for Champ. Straight up. many picks do not pan out but we could have used that 2nd rounder to sure up another position.

I'll be happy we got 6000+ yards from a RB in 5 years to this point(which is more from any Redskins RB all time in that much time) for a 2nd and a player who saying very publicly that he was not going to stay under any circumstances.

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 04:28 PM

Here is a link to the 2nd round of the 2004 draft. Had we kept the 2nd we gave up for Bailey we could have found a player in there.

http://www.drafthistory.com/years/2004.html

Yeah, I went through the next 30 picks from that pick here:
http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1268757&postcount=77

dj_stouty

11-02-2009, 04:29 PM

I wish the trade was Portis for Champ. Straight up. many picks do not pan out but we could have used that 2nd rounder to sure up another position.

The problem with this argument is that you are assuming the Redskins would have properly used the 2nd round pick. Take the Broncos for example...they used our 2nd round pick from the trade on Tatum Bell. He is averaging 4.1 yards per carry this season. (For the Florida Tuskers (http://www.ufl-football.com/players/profile/341) of the UFL)

shally

11-02-2009, 04:42 PM

Fathead

11-02-2009, 04:48 PM

you are correct..so much for the genius of shanahan..

Eh, even the best throw a gutter ball or two

lorimike

11-02-2009, 05:08 PM

The problem with this argument is that you are assuming the Redskins would have properly used the 2nd round pick. Take the Broncos for example...they used our 2nd round pick from the trade on Tatum Bell. He is averaging 4.1 yards per carry this season. (For the Florida Tuskers (http://www.ufl-football.com/players/profile/341) of the UFL)

I agree but if we cannot draft well then we'll never build a team. With a salary cap you can't build a team on free agents alone. All those squandered picks over the years is the reason we cant find a left or right tackle. If we had not done the Jason Taylor trade we would have used our 2nd last year on Loadholt.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 05:11 PM

Yeah, I went through the next 30 picks from that pick here:
http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1268757&postcount=77

Antwan Odam, Bob Sanders or Darnell Dockett would have been nice. We are doomed if we cannot draft. Look at all the players the Eagles drafted that are performing well. There is a team with a good front office.

Keino

11-02-2009, 05:11 PM

you are correct..so much for the genius of shanahan..

Terrell Davis in the 6th round......

shally

11-02-2009, 05:21 PM

Terrell Davis in the 6th round......

nice if you can do it once.. real genius is repeating that kind of event.. or at least finding productive players at the end of the draft consistently

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 05:25 PM

Antwan Odam, Bob Sanders or Darnell Dockett would have been nice. We are doomed if we cannot draft. Look at all the players the Eagles drafted that are performing well. There is a team with a good front office.

They wouldn't have drafted Sanders after taking Taylor at #5. Dockett had some character flags coming out of school, so I doubt Gibbs would have gone for him. Odom didn't do much until Washburn(the Titans' GREAT Dline coach) got him motivated in his contract year. Like I said in response to BnG: unless we were psychic enough to draft Jared Allen 80 or so picks before he went, there wasn't any talent there to overcome the loss of Portis.

Keino

11-02-2009, 05:26 PM

nice if you can do it once.. real genius is repeating that kind of event.. or at least finding productive players at the end of the draft consistently

You really want me to list all of Shanny's hits? The guy dances player evaluation rings around the clowns in our front office.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 05:43 PM

They wouldn't have drafted Sanders after taking Taylor at #5. Dockett had some character flags coming out of school, so I doubt Gibbs would have gone for him. Odom didn't do much until Washburn(the Titans' GREAT Dline coach) got him motivated in his contract year. Like I said in response to BnG: unless we were psychic enough to draft Jared Allen 80 or so picks before he went, there wasn't any talent there to overcome the loss of Portis.

Fair enough but we've given away too many picks over the years for players who were not that good. 2nd for jason Taylor, two thirds for Duckett, 3rd and a 4th for Brandon Lloyd. 3rd for Brunell who was going to get cut anyway. We gave away picks to move up and get McIntosh. It's aways multiple picks for just one player in return. Or in Jason Taylors case we gave up what would have been a high 2nd rounder for a guy who played here one year. We'll never build a team unless we value our draft picks more and if we find a GM who knows who to build a team. Of course if Danny boy won't step out of it we are doomed forever.

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 05:50 PM

Fair enough but we've given away too many picks over the years for players who were not that good. 2nd for jason Taylor, two thirds for Duckett, 3rd and a 4th for Brandon Lloyd. 3rd for Brunell who was going to get cut anyway. We gave away picks to move up and get McIntosh. It's aways multiple picks for just one player in return. Or in Jason Taylors case we gave up what would have been a high 2nd rounder for a guy who played here one year. We'll never build a team unless we value our draft picks more and if we find a GM who knows who to build a team. Of course if Danny boy won't step out of it we are doomed forever.

But even when the Skins keep their picks, they don't have much to show for it. The problem the Skins have had since Danny took over is that they keep swinging and missing(more often than not) regardless if they're trading away picks to move up in a draft or trading down in a draft for more picks. This is on top of the constant changing of schemes on both sides of the ball, which forces the skins to go out and get new talent for those schemes or misusing the talent they do get/have. You want to bring up the Eagles: if they didn't have Jason Peters, they would be terrible, and they gave up a ton of picks(and money) for him. They also haven't made too many more picks than the skins have since Gibbs left--especially in the first three rounds. The Eagles just understand what kind of players they need for their offense/defense, and draft accordingly. The skins don't.

I could care less how many picks the skins make in a year if they are getting quality players who fit what they want to do. If they got Michael Oher at 13 this year, even if they dealt up into the top 7 to do it, it would have been worth the picks. They can trade out of a top 5 pick for 5 2nd round picks, but if they don't draft anyone good, its as wasteful as dealing away the pick for a veteran who stays one year.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 05:51 PM

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 05:54 PM

We also had no 2nd rounder the 2007 draft because we traded that to move up in the 2nd the year before to get Rocky McIntosh. We also gave up a 6th for that. Once again we used 3 picks for just one player in return.

And if Rocky was a pro bowl player, it wouldn't matter. We keep going back to the same thing: picking good talent. The skins could have 3 first rounders a year and Snyderatto would feck up the picks.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 05:56 PM

And the 2nd we gave up for McIntosh turned out to be a high 2nd rounder. It would have been 6th overall in the 2nd round. There were some good players in that years 2nd round.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 05:59 PM

And if Rocky was a pro bowl player, it wouldn't matter. We keep going back to the same thing: picking good talent. The skins could have 3 first rounders a year and Snyderatto would feck up the picks.

the trick is to get the good player without giving up multiple picks. It's not basketball. It's a game prone to injury where you need 22 starters. Look at the good teams and you'll see they draft well. Of course they also tend to do well with free agents and the trades they make. In our case, pretty much anything we do turns to sh*t

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 06:09 PM

the trick is to get the good player without giving up multiple picks. It's not basketball. It's a game prone to injury where you need 22 starters. Look at the good teams and you'll see they draft well. Of course they also tend to do well with free agents and the trades they make. In our case, pretty much anything we do turns to sh*t

Which is exactly my point. The skins are striking out with the vast majority of their moves since Gibbs left, whether thats drafting, trading or signing players. Until they get even a competent personnel decision maker, it really doesn't matter how many draft picks they make or not. Even if you want to say that they should lay the groundwork for the next GM/coach, I think that if Shanny(or another GM with full control) gets total control, they're going to slash and burn the roster.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 08:47 PM

Which is exactly my point. The skins are striking out with the vast majority of their moves since Gibbs left, whether thats drafting, trading or signing players. Until they get even a competent personnel decision maker, it really doesn't matter how many draft picks they make or not. Even if you want to say that they should lay the groundwork for the next GM/coach, I think that if Shanny(or another GM with full control) gets total control, they're going to slash and burn the roster.

I could see that being Marty PartII. It will last one year and Danny will determine he's not having any fun. After Gibbs left it was Snyder who hired the Defensive Coord. and Offensive coordinator before hiring a coach. Who does that?

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 08:52 PM

I could see that being Marty PartII. It will last one year and Danny will determine he's not having any fun. After Gibbs left it was Snyder who hired the Defensive Coord. and Offensive coordinator before hiring a coach. Who does that?

We shall see, but Danny isn't going to hire someone like Shanny for a year, then can them. If he does that, the fans will desert again and Danny will have to sell the team.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 08:57 PM

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 09:05 PM

The Redskins traded a 2nd round choice in the 2005 draft for the New Orleans Saints 3rd round choice in 2004, which they used to draft Cooley. And the reason they didn't have a 3rd was because it was traded away for Marc Brunnel. So even when they hit a "home run" they give up draft picks. Sometimes it is OK to trade some picks for a player.

The cooley trade was worth it, but you're not really arguing with anything I've said.

If for instance your team is close to winning a championship it makes sense. The Eagles traded a late first, a 4th in 2009 and a 6th for Jason Peters. But they had a bevy of draft picks accumulated and land Macklin with their other first rounder.

Actually, they made only 2 more picks than the skins did in 2009(mostly because they made a ton of 5th round picks for some reason), and I think they made the same number of picks in 2008. And you'll never know how close you are to a championship until you take the field. Ask the Titans.

The Cooley trade worked out well for us but what if they had just used their own 3 rd rounder for Cooley and had a 2nd rounder the next year to fill another postion?

You're asking that decision makers be psychic and know when a certain player is going where so that they can plan ahead.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 09:12 PM

"You're asking that decision makers be psychic and know when a certain player is going where so that they can plan ahead." AHKHOURUS

No, Just that they wise up, stop making stupid trades. Value draft picks. Draft well etc. Once in a while it's fine to trade picks for players. I think the insanity of it all is to continue with the same strategy and expect a different result.

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 09:16 PM

No, Just that they wise up, stop making stupid trades. Value draft picks. Draft well etc. Once in a while it's fine to trade picks for players. I think the insanity of it all is to continue with the same strategy and expect a different result.

Then why are you complaining about the Cooley trade? We got a great player from that deal. Out of all the trades giving up draft picks that was an example of when it worked for the skins. I'm not saying that they should give up draft picks whenever possible, but getting a multiple pro bowl TE for a 2nd is a steal.

lorimike

11-02-2009, 09:36 PM

Then why are you complaining about the Cooley trade? We got a great player from that deal. Out of all the trades giving up draft picks that was an example of when it worked for the skins. I'm not saying that they should give up draft picks whenever possible, but getting a multiple pro bowl TE for a 2nd is a steal.

Because I wish we could have kept our 2nd rounder the following year to get another good player. Part of the reason we had to make that trade is we didn't have a 3rd rounder that year.... Not to change the subject but do you like any of these QB's in round 1 next year?

Death_Venom

11-02-2009, 09:47 PM

Honestly, I think Ramsey in-part was ruined by his time under center in Spurrier's Chuck and Duck offense. Toward the end of his time he got happy feet and deer in the headlight syndrome that he didn't show in the early part of his career in Washington. My biggest issue with Ramsey was that he didn't take care of the ball. That is the thing that I used to defend Campbell with, but he is no longer taking good care of the ball.

I could not agree more. As much as some of us would liketo seperate the QB from his envoirment the situation has to be looked in its totality. Ramsey playing for Spurrier's abomination of an offense and getting hit/sacked/rushed every time did not to encourage him.

Campbell's ball handling problems stem from our offensive line woes. You cannot seperate the two. Our offensive line is in total shambles and I would be surprised if we win even ONE more game this season. Additionally I have not seen a more incompetent group of Wide Receivers than the group the Skins currently have.

akhhorus

11-02-2009, 10:01 PM

Because I wish we could have kept our 2nd rounder the following year to get another good player. Part of the reason we had to make that trade is we didn't have a 3rd rounder that year....

So the skins would have been stuck with Ramsey at QB in 2004 and 2005. Brunell might have been cut, but thats just piling a counterfactual on top of another.

Not to change the subject but do you like any of these QB's in round 1 next year?

If Bradford has protection he should be Eli Manning without the mental probs. I don't like Clausen, Tebow or McCoy at all.

VA2TX

11-02-2009, 10:03 PM

I saw what happens when you put a decent QB prospect like Chase Daniel (David Carr) behind a terrible O-Line in his first 3 seasons. IT RUINS THEIR LIFE. It happened to Joey Harrington too.

Conversely, rookies that get a chance to begin with a good line can succeed (see Flacco and Ryan... hell even Sanchez)

Stafford will be ruined too. Our O-Line should be priority #1 no matter how first round picks we have to "waste" on linemen.

dj_stouty

11-03-2009, 08:27 AM

If we had not done the Jason Taylor trade we would have used our 2nd last year on Loadholt.

We would? Or we could? Big difference. You continue to give the FO way too much credit. Hell, they loved Barnes so much, they "could have" used that pick on him in the 2nd instead of the 3rd. Knowing this FO, it isn't out of the question...

Regardless...Its fantasy land to sit back here with the 20/20 goggles on and proclaim how great it could have been. I prefer to look at how the FO has been doing with the picks they had...and Vinny's "best player available" technique has been allowing them to ignore both lines for years.

So looking back at the Portis trade...I really don't think that 2nd rounder would have been much value to the Redskins. It certainly wouldn't have transpired into any more or less wins. What I do know is that we got one of the best RBs in Redskins history out of the deal and I'll take that for face value.

BurgundyNGold

11-03-2009, 08:58 AM

We would? Or we could? Big difference. You continue to give the FO way too much credit. Hell, they loved Barnes so much, they "could have" used that pick on him in the 2nd instead of the 3rd. Knowing this FO, it isn't out of the question...

Regardless...Its fantasy land to sit back here with the 20/20 goggles on and proclaim how great it could have been. I prefer to look at how the FO has been doing with the picks they had...and Vinny's "best player available" technique has been allowing them to ignore both lines for years.

So looking back at the Portis trade...I really don't think that 2nd rounder would have been much value to the Redskins. It certainly wouldn't have transpired into any more or less wins. What I do know is that we got one of the best RBs in Redskins history out of the deal and I'll take that for face value.
But that's just it, they haven't been selecting the "best player available". Any number of times, the best player available was on the OL or DL. Yet, they still took some LB, FB or CB, usually reaching more than one round above the guy's projection in the process.

What you're looking at here is complete incompetence. There is too much emphasis place on certain positions every year, but they're the wrong positions because they misidentified what it is that the team actually needs. Best player available rarely comes into play. It's more like "best player available" at the target position. The flaws lie in that they're likely targeted the wrong position (to the detriment of the ones that actually need attention) and then misidentified the best player available at that position.

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963

11-03-2009, 09:05 AM

Gibbs can be blamed for picking up archueletta,are,and a few others,but brunnel did take the skins to the playoffs,so i think he was worth it.i think JC would have been a lot better QB,if he had been allowed to stay in gibbs system instead of this west coast horse hockey.had williams been named skins head coach,he would have most likely been allowed to do that.
i think 99.p percent of the mess the skins are in is because of cerrato and snyder.had they had any sense at all,they would help the coaches and players by finding guys who can actually play and who's name just does not
look so good in lights!!!:spy::devil2:

Moe

11-03-2009, 09:25 AM

You really want me to list all of Shanny's hits? The guy dances player evaluation rings around the clowns in our front office.

That's not really saying much. His last draft was good but overall he's been very spotty and the list of free agent disasters he's wasted money, time and traded picks on trumps the mismanagement of even this front office.

Hr fan

11-03-2009, 09:27 AM

dj_stouty

11-03-2009, 09:33 AM

But that's just it, they haven't been selecting the "best player available". Any number of times, the best player available was on the OL or DL. Yet, they still took some LB, FB or CB, usually reaching more than one round above the guy's projection in the process.

Vinny's BPA is certainly not the same as everyone else's BPA! I cringe everytime he says "best player available"...because I know his draft board looks like Daniel Baldwin organized it after a week-long bender.

Patrick

11-03-2009, 10:11 AM

Vinny's BPA is certainly not the same as everyone else's BPA! I cringe everytime he says "best player available"...because I know his draft board looks like Daniel Baldwin organized it after a week-long bender.
Thats exactly it ....... Vinny's perception of what the "Best Player Available" has been VERY inaccurate. This year's supplemental draft might be one of the few times he got it right.

BurgundyNGold

11-03-2009, 10:33 AM

Vinny's BPA is certainly not the same as everyone else's BPA! I cringe everytime he says "best player available"...because I know his draft board looks like Daniel Baldwin organized it after a week-long bender.
LMAO! I cringe too because a) Snyderrato's drafting history is all about targeting players and positions, which is the complete opposite of the BPA methodology, and b) I honestly do not believe that they know who the BPA at any one time.

dj_stouty

11-03-2009, 10:51 AM

LMAO! I cringe too because a) Snyderrato's drafting history is all about targeting players and positions, which is the complete opposite of the BPA methodology, and b) I honestly do not believe that they know who the BPA at any one time.

I'm surprised they simply don't take the highest rated mock drafts and use them as a resource. Had they done so, they would have noticed that Cody was no where near a 5th round value and that Meredith and Robinson were steals in the 5th. Hell, I would have traded next year's 4th rounder to get another 5th and take them BOTH in hopes that one would pan out...

shally

11-03-2009, 11:19 AM

I'm surprised they simply don't take the highest rated mock drafts and use them as a resource. Had they done so, they would have noticed that Cody was no where near a 5th round value and that Meredith and Robinson were steals in the 5th. Hell, I would have traded next year's 4th rounder to get another 5th and take them BOTH in hopes that one would pan out...

pathetic !! where do they even come up with a pick like Cody Glenn ???

dj_stouty

11-03-2009, 11:56 AM

pathetic !! where do they even come up with a pick like Cody Glenn ???

Vinny probably owed a friend a favor. Same thing happened the year Danny drafted Gilbran Hamden.

BurgundyNGold

11-03-2009, 12:20 PM

I'm surprised they simply don't take the highest rated mock drafts and use them as a resource. Had they done so, they would have noticed that Cody was no where near a 5th round value and that Meredith and Robinson were steals in the 5th. Hell, I would have traded next year's 4th rounder to get another 5th and take them BOTH in hopes that one would pan out...
I agree 100%. If you're going to skimp on scouting (I think they only have 4) you'd might as well farm the whole job out to Mike Mayock lol. Or akh lmao.

shally

11-03-2009, 12:25 PM

I agree 100%. If you're going to skimp on scouting (I think they only have 4) you'd might as well farm the whole job out to Mike Mayock lol. Or akh lmao.

Akh would want the key to Snyder's private liquor cabinet

BurgundyNGold

11-03-2009, 01:43 PM

Akh would want the key to Snyder's private liquor cabinet
"Will work for bourbon" lol