TJ Duckett (1 Viewer)

[djb916420]

actually, Gibbs has been clear, if Brunell gets injured or benched due to bad play, Campbell would be the starter. If Brunell is injured during a game, Collins would finish it, but the next week, and the future, would belong to Campbell. So to say he can't pass Collins on the depth chart is wrong. Collins simply knows the offense better but doesn't have 1/10 the physical tools Jason does.

i didnt know this was a collins tread.

 

[redman]

Daniel Snyder has Jerious Norwood as a late round sleeper in his Scientology Fantasy Football League.Trading for TJ Duckett removed an obstacle.

The Danny wtfpwns Virginia McKaskey in that league - 18-4 all time head to head, including 3-0 in the playoffs.

 

[redman]

Wasted draft picks are what's hard to understand. I fully comprehend the "He's done everything they've asked of him" spin. Of course he has, because the team has asked absolutely nothing of him. Or more aptly put, hasn't trusted him to tie his own shoes with anything on the line. I'm also not buying the seasoned vet angle. Plenty of young QBs are learning the ropes faster than Campbell, and leading their teams to wins. Guys can either play football at this level or they can't, and it's no different for guys being coached by Joe Gibbs. The bottom line for me is I just can't imagine Campbell reaching the success he'd need to reach to justify his draft pick(s), when he can't even bypass Todd Collins as Mr. gameday replacement 18 months in. I mean in all seriousness, how many QBs in the NFL do you have Todd Collins forcing to the bench... Campbell and Cody Pickett? I listed Campbell as one of my buy-low sleepers heading into this season based on end of year quotes from Gibbs last season (i.e. joking how it was time for Campbell to start earning his money). But now to me he's the most likely "young high drafted QB" to never become an NFL starter at all. Little to zero buzz about him from his own team, zero fanbase pushing for him to play, a franchise with seemingly no tolerance for losing for the sake of development means the shortest leash when/if he ever does start. Ramsey anyone? Nope. To me this franchise is made for the Brunell's of the world.

I look around the league and what I see with relatively rare exception are QB's who didn't start in the NFL at in their rookie seasons. You must be watching a different league. As for the dizzying heights Campbell will need to reach to justify the trade to get him, as long as he manages to outperform such football luminaries as Karl Paymah, Brandon Marshall and Manny Lawson who the 49'ers ultimately chose with the 22nd overall pick) I'd say that they did just fine.

 

[redman]

actually, Gibbs has been clear, if Brunell gets injured or benched due to bad play, Campbell would be the starter. If Brunell is injured during a game, Collins would finish it, but the next week, and the future, would belong to Campbell. So to say he can't pass Collins on the depth chart is wrong. Collins simply knows the offense better but doesn't have 1/10 the physical tools Jason does.

i didnt know this was a collins tread.

It's become everything else, so why not Collins too?

 

[Englishteacher]

Gibbs isn't even running this team now, Saunders and Williams are. You have to Give Gibbs credit for smartly handing over the reigns.

There's a lot to disagree with in this thread, but you are clearly uninformed on this.

The offensive system is Al Saunders'. The defnsive system is Greg Williams'. One of these guys will be the head coach in a year or two after Gibbs steps down. Is Gibbs involved and the head coach? Yes. But the bulk of the coaching is coming from these two guys with Gibbs' more of a consultant and de facto head coach role. Rememebr what happened to the Skins offense when Gibbs first came in? Offense =ed PATHETIC. Gibbs had been passed by my friend. Now I do give him a lot of credit for bringing in guys LIKE Williams and Saunders? Yes but it's THEIR systems that they're working with now. So, I do agree you have a point but I think you have to concede Gibbs is one of the head coaches in the NFL right now with the least amount of control over his team.Riddle me this. If Gibbs were to step down RIGHT NOW, do you think it would make a huge difference? I don't at all.

 

[Englishteacher]

Because they hate wasting time researching for the draft.

How can you say that? Look at how their research paid off with Jason Campb.... Oh, never mind.

I don't see how that is capable of confusing. I was agreeing with Bloom that they hate wasting time researching the draft when their research results in them wasting 3 draft picks to select a guy like Jason Campbell to gather dust on their bench. They'd obviously prefer to forgo that sort of research and instead use a single draft pick to allow a guy like TJ Duckett to gather dust. HTH

Do you reach all your conclusions before all the evidence is in?In 2003, were you saying the Bengals wasted a pick on Carson Palmer because he was just collecting dust? Anyone who knows Gibbs, knew the route they would take with Campbell. They've stuck to that route and it is foolish to say they wasted picks to get him at this moment.

IMHO, when it appears you will be waiting until 2007 to take the training wheels off a guy you wasted 3 picks to take in 2004, the evidence is in. He wasn't as good as they thought. I have little doubt they would go back in time and use those picks on players who could see the field [and BTW help the team] sometime before 2007. Carson Palmer is a horrible analogy. Cincinnati demoted a QB who was arguably more successful and productive than Brunnell [Kitna] just to get Palmer on the field his sophomore year. The Redskins OTOH brought in Todd Collins to be a game day replacement for Brunnell during Campbell's sophomore year. Bottom line, if the Redskins saw Campbell as a Palmer type difference maker, he would not be languishing behind a so-so starter like Mark Brunnell, unqualified to be a game day replacement, basically interchangeable as a backup with the likes of Todd Collins.

 

[Englishteacher]

Because they hate wasting time researching for the draft.

How can you say that? Look at how their research paid off with Jason Campb.... Oh, never mind.

I don't see how that is capable of confusing. I was agreeing with Bloom that they hate wasting time researching the draft when their research results in them wasting 3 draft picks to select a guy like Jason Campbell to gather dust on their bench. They'd obviously prefer to forgo that sort of research and instead use a single draft pick to allow a guy like TJ Duckett to gather dust. HTH

Do you reach all your conclusions before all the evidence is in?In 2003, were you saying the Bengals wasted a pick on Carson Palmer because he was just collecting dust? Anyone who knows Gibbs, knew the route they would take with Campbell. They've stuck to that route and it is foolish to say they wasted picks to get him at this moment.

IMHO, when it appears you will be waiting until 2007 to take the training wheels off a guy you wasted 3 picks to take in 2004, the evidence is in. He wasn't as good as they thought. I have little doubt they would go back in time and use those picks on players who could see the field [and BTW help the team] sometime before 2007. Carson Palmer is a horrible analogy. Cincinnati demoted a QB who was arguably more successful and productive than Brunnell [Kitna] just to get Palmer on the field his sophomore year. The Redskins OTOH brought in Todd Collins to be a game day replacement for Brunnell during Campbell's sophomore year. Bottom line, if the Redskins saw Campbell as a Palmer type difference maker, he would not be languishing behind a so-so starter like Mark Brunnell, unqualified to be a game day replacement, basically interchangeable as a backup with the likes of Todd Collins.

LOL @ the rigid thinking. The QB needs the most seasoning of any position on the field. QB's have also in recent years played far longer careers - by as many as five to seven years in some cases - than they did before. Campbell is in Washington for the long haul, and they're developing him and by all accounts he's done everything they've asked him to do to learn the position. Gibbs has a long history of letting QB's absorb the game from the sideline for multiple seasons before putting them in, and notably every one of those QB's did well when then finally got their shot.

He's ready to play now in the sense that Phillip Rivers was last year or entering this season - he' can lead the team but he needs some experience on the job and will have some growing pains. This is a team, however, that is capable of getting deep into the playoffs (assuming they can continue to rebound from an 0-2 start) and their best chance to be competitive now is with Brunell, who threw for a career high in TD's last year and presently has a career high QB rating for the season.

What's so hard to understand here?

You have some points but what about this? Did they really NEED to salvage a draft class in order to trade up and get a marginal first round quarterback if he was going to sit for three years? That just doesn't make draft sense. Not at all. At least with Ramsey they played the guy but they reached to get into the first round for him too. The Skins are the absolute worst when it comes to getting value in the draft and it's not even close. Look at Mcintosh as an example from this year. Can he be a good player? Certainly! But did they get him in a smart way that made best use of the franchises assets? No. Not at all. And that's the point. You look up and down the Washington roster and it's filled with PLAYERS but you look at how they got them and you can see why they're a team that will be riddled with mediocrity. Folks, you look at Philly, Baltimore, and New England and maxmizing player aquisition value is an art form. Snyder is performing this task like a neurosurgeon doing his job with a butterknife and tablespoon and that's the best analogy I can give.

 

[Englishteacher]

It's not the fact The Skins DRAFTED Campbell or that they're letting him learn from the bench first; it's the way he was aquired. They gave up way too much too get him.

What's the evidence that they overpaid? Peter King? Len Pastabelly? FBGs? It only takes one other team interested in Campbell to drive the price up. You are either saying that nobody else wanted Campbell anywhere near that spot or that he will not be a very good QB. I don't believe we have evidence of either right now.

The Skins HAVE NO DEPTH.

Welcome to the NFL. No team is loaded with depth at every position.The Skins are insanely deep at RB and WR. They are solid in LB depth. I believe they are decent at QB. I would even argue they have decent depth at DL with the emergence of two rookie DTs, but they could use help at DE. The jury is still out on the OL and DB depth isn't looking too hot right now. If Cooley went down, their TEs wouldn't produce much receiving-wise, but they'd be okay blocking.

So, please list all the teams with great depth at numerous positions.

I'll address your points here. You make intelligent arguments but I see things much differently.CAMPBELL You ask most draft experts and Campbell was an iffy first round pick. He might have been had in the second round and I'd say most teams had him graded that way. If not most, plenty; believe me. It was the same with Ramsey. Despite this, the Redskins traded all the way up to #25 and if I rememeber correctly, gave up a first round pick the following year, which the Broncos were more than willing to do because the Skins had a shot at having a Top 10 pick the next year, especially after the debut Gibbs' had. The concept of the draft is taking players in waves and developing them. Some guys in the third round end up being the best players on their teams. You get no such chance if you have no third round picks. It's like the salesman who talks to 100 people and the salesman who talks to ten. That's giving up an awful lot don't you think? And what ends up happening if you consistently draft inferior talent to plug holes you end up having to draft someone to replace them 3 years later. This is exactly what knowledgeable draft guys have said. Scouts. If I remember a scout or GM's take on the Ramsey deal he said this, "They paid Filet Mignon price for flank steak." Now flank steak can be pretty good, actually I like it if it's done right, but if I eat flank steak and it sucks AND I'm paying Filet Mignon price I'm pissed off. Very much moreso if I'm paying Filet Mignon price. Now unless it's burned badly, flank steak is still allright, even if it's not the best flank steak, but I'm not going to make the same mistake twice. I'll wait till the day I can get my money's worth thank you. I'm far happier with a bad $6 flank steak than I am a $15 one. That's easy. What's more to mention is the Skins made a bad move by trading up so early in the draft. Aaron Rogers was the much more highly regarded draft prospect, if you remember, many thought he'd go #1 overall (it was a weak draft overall) but he fell and fell and fell to Green Bay, at #24!!!!!!! One spot before the Skins drafted. Now if they had waited and traded up, do you think they could have moved in to #23 and gotten Rogers? Maybe! But they had the #25 because they were hellbent on Campbell. Now it wouldn't have taken much at all to move up a couple spots that late in the first round but you know what? The Skins had nothing left! They'd already used all their resources.

DEPTH You are correct. No team in the NFL has great depth at every position. But, you look at the difference between some of the starters for the Skins and the guys behind them and the dropff is considerable. You may be talking about in some instances a star, who more than likely is either overpaid or was aquired at great expense of multiple draft picks, and a street free agent. You look at other teams and they have a starter and then a third round draft pick whom the team plans on starting in two years when the veteran becomes overpriced or ineffective due to decline in skills. The skins have made good on a couple street type guys and undrafted free agents but in most cases there's a reason why these guys weren't picked in the draft. So what happens when your starter gets hurt? Well, on defense they're lucky to have an exceptional coach like Greg Williams is all I have to say. That guy does more with less than practically anyone in the NFL.

bleaaahhh..... gotta go to bed getting tired, insomnia gone now

I'll come back and address the rest of your points though

 

[SSOG]

TJ Duckett, Can someone explain why Washington traded for him?

Because the league ruled that they weren't allowed to just GIVE their draft picks away to Denver, they had to at least get something in return.

Top Ten Reasons Wash traded for Duckett

1 - He had the best Netflix reserve list.

2 - He's good to carry at least two cases for tailgating.

3 - Snazzy dresser.

4 - Brings own heating pad to keep the bench nice and warm.

5 - Prank phone call gone horribly, horribly awry.

6 - Warrick Dunn paid them to do it.

7 - When Portis said 'I'll be back soon' they thought he said 'I'd like a platoon'.

8 - Somebody has to keep Daniel Snyder's seat for him pregame.

9 - Bad intelligence from the NSA.

and the number ten reason the Washington Redskins traded for TJ Duckett --

1 - They were very, very drunk at the time.

Thank you thank you!

It might not be funny but I am high on cold medicine so who can tell....

This post (especially #5-7) needs some more love.

One other thing I'd point out in this Redskins Draft Incompetence-Fest 2006: draft picks are notoriously overvalued by teams when it comes to trading young talent.

The Redskins (after much trial and much error) have realized that it's far better to have a still-young but proven player than a draft pick that you hope will get you an equivalent player. The way that the 'Skins have adjusted what they've done in this regard is to simply ensure that the player they're acquiring is young and has his best years in front of him. Coles, Moss, Randle El, Lloyd, Carter, Griffin, Washington, Thomas, Rabach, and yes, Duckett, all fit this profile.

I think they're actually ahead of the curve on this. Many draft picks don't pan out, but few FA's fail to at least approximate the player they have been to date.

Yes and no. On the one hand, free agents have a much higher success rate. On the other hand, free agents are a *LOT* more expensive. Theoretically, you could get a mediocre FA CB for $2 million a year, or you could burn 4 7th rounders on CBs, pay them all $500,000 a year, and have one of the four turn out to be mediocre. Comparable production at a fraction of the cost. That's one of the big reasons why Washington is so depth-starved- free agent splashes make for great starters, but rookies make for some FANTASTIC quality depth.Also, for all this talk about how Washington keeps bringing in players who are young and have their best years in front of them... has anyone ever noticed that Washington spends an equal amount of time saying goodbye to players that are young and have their best years in front of them? Sure, they got Moss, but they parted with Coles to do it. Sure, they got Portis, but they had to let Bailey walk in the process. Yes, Shawn Springs has played very well for them, but so did Fred Smooth, who they let leave to make room for Springs. I really don't see any net gains in quality young players here, because for every quality young FA they bring in, they have to let another one walk away.

 

[BigJim®]

Top Ten Reasons Wash traded for Duckett1 - He had the best Netflix reserve list.2 - He's good to carry at least two cases for tailgating.3 - Snazzy dresser.4 - Brings own heating pad to keep the bench nice and warm.5 - Prank phone call gone horribly, horribly awry.6 - Warrick Dunn paid them to do it.7 - When Portis said 'I'll be back soon' they thought he said 'I'd like a platoon'.8 - Somebody has to keep Daniel Snyder's seat for him pregame.9 - Bad intelligence from the NSA.and the number ten reason the Washington Redskins traded for TJ Duckett --1 - They were very, very drunk at the time.Thank you thank you! It might not be funny but I am high on cold medicine so who can tell....

 

[redman]

Gibbs isn't even running this team now, Saunders and Williams are. You have to Give Gibbs credit for smartly handing over the reigns.

There's a lot to disagree with in this thread, but you are clearly uninformed on this.

The offensive system is Al Saunders'. The defnsive system is Greg Williams'. One of these guys will be the head coach in a year or two after Gibbs steps down. Is Gibbs involved and the head coach? Yes. But the bulk of the coaching is coming from these two guys with Gibbs' more of a consultant and de facto head coach role. Rememebr what happened to the Skins offense when Gibbs first came in? Offense =ed PATHETIC. Gibbs had been passed by my friend. Now I do give him a lot of credit for bringing in guys LIKE Williams and Saunders? Yes but it's THEIR systems that they're working with now. So, I do agree you have a point but I think you have to concede Gibbs is one of the head coaches in the NFL right now with the least amount of control over his team.Riddle me this. If Gibbs were to step down RIGHT NOW, do you think it would make a huge difference? I don't at all.

Absolutely it would make a huge difference. Gibbs' best traits aren't and really haven't been scheming or game planning as much as they've been organizing and motivating people towards a common goal. I think he's simply a genius at it. Case in point - if his coaching style was all about scheming, then how was he able to smoothly transition into an entirely different sport, NASCAR, and win championships there? Neither Saunders nor Williams has shown anything in limited head coaching stints, and I know for a fact that neither of those guys would have come to Washington if not to coach with Gibbs. Gibbs sets the tone everywhere. If Williams had been the head coach of the team after that 0-2 start I think the pucker factor around Redskins Park would have been at 10+ given how high strung he is. Gibbs kept everyone cool and has been the guy to get, for example (and taking us back to the original topic) TJ Duckett into his office each week to explain the situation and keep things cool. When discussing Saunders, people forget that a big part of the reason why he was hired was that he coaches the same core system that Gibbs does. Yes, Saunders is effectively the offensive coordinator now, but Gibbs is still heavily involved. For all the player personnel changes that people like to point to regarding the Redskins, isn't it remarkable that they have chemistry that's as good as it is? Where are the controversial statements or the gripes voiced to the media? All such players were quickly shipped off, with the last one (Arrington) departing last offseason. That's all Gibbs.

 

[DCThunder]

Gibbs isn't even running this team now, Saunders and Williams are. You have to Give Gibbs credit for smartly handing over the reigns.

There's a lot to disagree with in this thread, but you are clearly uninformed on this.

The offensive system is Al Saunders'. The defnsive system is Greg Williams'. One of these guys will be the head coach in a year or two after Gibbs steps down. Is Gibbs involved and the head coach? Yes. But the bulk of the coaching is coming from these two guys with Gibbs' more of a consultant and de facto head coach role. Rememebr what happened to the Skins offense when Gibbs first came in? Offense =ed PATHETIC. Gibbs had been passed by my friend. Now I do give him a lot of credit for bringing in guys LIKE Williams and Saunders? Yes but it's THEIR systems that they're working with now. So, I do agree you have a point but I think you have to concede Gibbs is one of the head coaches in the NFL right now with the least amount of control over his team.Riddle me this. If Gibbs were to step down RIGHT NOW, do you think it would make a huge difference? I don't at all.

Absolutely it would make a huge difference. Gibbs' best traits aren't and really haven't been scheming or game planning as much as they've been organizing and motivating people towards a common goal. I think he's simply a genius at it. Case in point - if his coaching style was all about scheming, then how was he able to smoothly transition into an entirely different sport, NASCAR, and win championships there? Neither Saunders nor Williams has shown anything in limited head coaching stints, and I know for a fact that neither of those guys would have come to Washington if not to coach with Gibbs. Gibbs sets the tone everywhere. If Williams had been the head coach of the team after that 0-2 start I think the pucker factor around Redskins Park would have been at 10+ given how high strung he is. Gibbs kept everyone cool and has been the guy to get, for example (and taking us back to the original topic) TJ Duckett into his office each week to explain the situation and keep things cool. When discussing Saunders, people forget that a big part of the reason why he was hired was that he coaches the same core system that Gibbs does. Yes, Saunders is effectively the offensive coordinator now, but Gibbs is still heavily involved. For all the player personnel changes that people like to point to regarding the Redskins, isn't it remarkable that they have chemistry that's as good as it is? Where are the controversial statements or the gripes voiced to the media? All such players were quickly shipped off, with the last one (Arrington) departing last offseason. That's all Gibbs.

In the Gibbs 1.0 days it was Richie Pettibone handling the D, a la Gregg Williams, and Joe Bugel and other offensive guys handling the O, a la Saunders. Gibbs was more involved with the offense than he is now, but he still delegated more responsibility to his assistant coaches than any other HC in the league. And a core play from the old days, the famous Counter-Trey, is still being run, just with jazzed up blocking and other bells and whistles. But it's still pulling guards and tackles into the hole and the WRs blocking like crazy down field.

 

[redman]

Also, for all this talk about how Washington keeps bringing in players who are young and have their best years in front of them... has anyone ever noticed that Washington spends an equal amount of time saying goodbye to players that are young and have their best years in front of them? Sure, they got Moss, but they parted with Coles to do it. Sure, they got Portis, but they had to let Bailey walk in the process. Yes, Shawn Springs has played very well for them, but so did Fred Smooth, who they let leave to make room for Springs. I really don't see any net gains in quality young players here, because for every quality young FA they bring in, they have to let another one walk away.

You're missing the point here. Gibbs, after his first season, told the entire team that if anyone wanted out they should come forward. Gardner and Coles wanted out, so they were obliged. If Coles had chosen to stay I'm sure he'd have remained. It came down to that, though you can understand that no 'Skins fan is ever going to cry over that departure given that it got the team Moss. As for Bailey, he too stated that he wanted out - you may not have heard that in Denver. I think he was comparable to Portis in Denver in that regard given that both guys were becoming malcontents. That trade was good for both teams. You have to give up quality to get quality and both teams got quality. (As I've pointed out elsewhere, you could even argue that the 'Skins have gotten more from Portis, who carried them into the playoffs last year and is clearly the fulcrum in their offense than have the Broncos from Bailey given that the Broncos haven't really bettered their position in the AFC. It's debateable anyway.) The defense under Gregg Williams has been better without Bailey than was the defense with Bailey before the trade. You as a Broncos fan should of all people appreciate what the Redskins do to team-build. The Broncos like the 'Skins use all of their cap room every year and heavily pursue FA's. It's no coincidence that Daryl Gardener went as a FA from the 'Skins to the Broncos, though ironically it was the Broncos who gave him a large, multi-year contract despite his bad injury and attitude history. The Broncos too traded up and arguably overpaid to secure a would-be franchise QB of the future this draft the way that the 'Skins did last year, and I don't see a glittering history of making every draft pick count in Denver either. Somehow, the Broncos only get chuckles when they import the entire D-line from Cleveland while the 'Skins get criticism for "cap hell", etc. when they do their business. IMHO that comes down to Pat Bowlen having longer media relationships than does Snyder, who is more private and less concerned about iimage.BTW - they didn't let Smoot go "to make room for Springs". Smoot and Springs were teammates in 2004, and Smoot went for top dollar to the Vikings despite a comparable but slightly lesser offer from the 'Skins. Ditto Antonio Pierce. It was about the money for those guys.

 

[Emmitt Smith]

Also, for all this talk about how Washington keeps bringing in players who are young and have their best years in front of them... has anyone ever noticed that Washington spends an equal amount of time saying goodbye to players that are young and have their best years in front of them? Sure, they got Moss, but they parted with Coles to do it. Sure, they got Portis, but they had to let Bailey walk in the process. Yes, Shawn Springs has played very well for them, but so did Fred Smooth, who they let leave to make room for Springs. I really don't see any net gains in quality young players here, because for every quality young FA they bring in, they have to let another one walk away.

You're missing the point here. Gibbs, after his first season, told the entire team that if anyone wanted out they should come forward. Gardner and Coles wanted out, so they were obliged. If Coles had chosen to stay I'm sure he'd have remained. It came down to that, though you can understand that no 'Skins fan is ever going to cry over that departure given that it got the team Moss. As for Bailey, he too stated that he wanted out - you may not have heard that in Denver. I think he was comparable to Portis in Denver in that regard given that both guys were becoming malcontents. That trade was good for both teams. You have to give up quality to get quality and both teams got quality. (As I've pointed out elsewhere, you could even argue that the 'Skins have gotten more from Portis, who carried them into the playoffs last year and is clearly the fulcrum in their offense than have the Broncos from Bailey given that the Broncos haven't really bettered their position in the AFC. It's debateable anyway.) The defense under Gregg Williams has been better without Bailey than was the defense with Bailey before the trade.

You as a Broncos fan should of all people appreciate what the Redskins do to team-build. The Broncos like the 'Skins use all of their cap room every year and heavily pursue FA's. It's no coincidence that Daryl Gardener went as a FA from the 'Skins to the Broncos, though ironically it was the Broncos who gave him a large, multi-year contract despite his bad injury and attitude history. The Broncos too traded up and arguably overpaid to secure a would-be franchise QB of the future this draft the way that the 'Skins did last year, and I don't see a glittering history of making every draft pick count in Denver either.

Somehow, the Broncos only get chuckles when they import the entire D-line from Cleveland while the 'Skins get criticism for "cap hell", etc. when they do their business. IMHO that comes down to Pat Bowlen having longer media relationships than does Snyder, who is more private and less concerned about iimage.

BTW - they didn't let Smoot go "to make room for Springs". Smoot and Springs were teammates in 2004, and Smoot went for top dollar to the Vikings despite a comparable but slightly lesser offer from the 'Skins. Ditto Antonio Pierce. It was about the money for those guys.

Phuuulease. I agree with all of your assessment, except for the last part. If the Redskins wanted to keep Smoot and Pierce, they could have easily kept them. The Redskins do the jobs of the players union for them by upping the ceiling for players every single season. They said Pierce and Smoot were "core guys" and wanted to keep them. What did the Redskins do? They did what they always do. They let their own talent walk, and then brought in over paid FA's.

Now the one difference between the old Snyder led teams and the teams under Gibbs the last two years, is that they are getting young players.

The Redskins problem is still the same. They have too much player turnover each off season. The don't keep their own. And when you do those two things, you just can't have a healthy team chemistry capable of going to the Super Bowl. Maybe they can haphazardly win anywhere from 8 to 10 games, but until they relax in the off season, and keep the majority of their players, they won't be able to compete with better run franchises with stability.

 

[redman]

Phuuulease. I agree with all of your assessment, except for the last part. If the Redskins wanted to keep Smoot and Pierce, they could have easily kept them. The Redskins do the jobs of the players union for them by upping the ceiling for players every single season. They said Pierce and Smoot were "core guys" and wanted to keep them. What did the Redskins do? They did what they always do. They let their own talent walk, and then brought in over paid FA's.Now the one difference between the old Snyder led teams and the teams under Gibbs the last two years, is that they are getting young players.The Redskins problem is still the same. They have too much player turnover each off season. The don't keep their own. And when you do those two things, you just can't have a healthy team chemistry capable of going to the Super Bowl. Maybe they can haphazardly win anywhere from 8 to 10 games, but until they relax in the off season, and keep the majority of their players, they won't be able to compete with better run franchises with stability.

What turnover? New offensive starters consist of . . . Lloyd. You could include Randle El to the extent that you view the base offense as a 3 WR offense. New defensive starters consist of Carter and Archuleta. That's 3 or 4 new starters out of 22. Where's the huge turnover? Even last year their new starters were Rabach, Moss, and Patten on offense, and Holdman and Rogers on defense, so 5/22. I'd venture to guess that that's as good or better stability than you'd see on at least half of the teams in the league in any given year. Again, everyone needs to reexamine what the team has done since January 2004. It's an entirely different approach. You're going to miss that if all you do is roll your eyes and see another headline that has the Redskins signing another FA. Believe me, we're not having this conversation three years ago. Regarding Smoot and Pierce, these are the best two examples of "FA's who got away", but I stand by the fact that it's not for lack of trying to resign them. Pierce in particular was a loss I didn't like and still don't like - he's a very underrated player and team leader, and Lemar Marshall as diligent as he is just isn't the at the same level. Smoot was an above average cover corner, nothing more, who wanted top dollar to be recognized as a top CB. (Now that he's bulked up and dedicated himself to more run support this year I'm curious to see how he does but that wasn't his profile two years ago.) I personally think he wanted too much money. Nevertheless, as with Pierce, the team offered very comparable salary and bonus, and he opted to go elsewhere for slightly more rather than stay with the team. That's the nature of free agency.

 

[Emmitt Smith]

Phuuulease. I agree with all of your assessment, except for the last part. If the Redskins wanted to keep Smoot and Pierce, they could have easily kept them. The Redskins do the jobs of the players union for them by upping the ceiling for players every single season. They said Pierce and Smoot were "core guys" and wanted to keep them. What did the Redskins do? They did what they always do. They let their own talent walk, and then brought in over paid FA's.Now the one difference between the old Snyder led teams and the teams under Gibbs the last two years, is that they are getting young players.The Redskins problem is still the same. They have too much player turnover each off season. The don't keep their own. And when you do those two things, you just can't have a healthy team chemistry capable of going to the Super Bowl. Maybe they can haphazardly win anywhere from 8 to 10 games, but until they relax in the off season, and keep the majority of their players, they won't be able to compete with better run franchises with stability.

What turnover? New offensive starters consist of . . . Lloyd. You could include Randle El to the extent that you view the base offense as a 3 WR offense. New defensive starters consist of Carter and Archuleta. That's 3 or 4 new starters out of 22. Where's the huge turnover? Even last year their new starters were Rabach, Moss, and Patten on offense, and Holdman and Rogers on defense, so 5/22. I'd venture to guess that that's as good or better stability than you'd see on at least half of the teams in the league in any given year. Again, everyone needs to reexamine what the team has done since January 2004. It's an entirely different approach. You're going to miss that if all you do is roll your eyes and see another headline that has the Redskins signing another FA. Believe me, we're not having this conversation three years ago. Regarding Smoot and Pierce, these are the best two examples of "FA's who got away", but I stand by the fact that it's not for lack of trying to resign them. Pierce in particular was a loss I didn't like and still don't like - he's a very underrated player and team leader, and Lemar Marshall as diligent as he is just isn't the at the same level. Smoot was an above average cover corner, nothing more, who wanted top dollar to be recognized as a top CB. (Now that he's bulked up and dedicated himself to more run support this year I'm curious to see how he does but that wasn't his profile two years ago.) I personally think he wanted too much money. Nevertheless, as with Pierce, the team offered very comparable salary and bonus, and he opted to go elsewhere for slightly more rather than stay with the team. That's the nature of free agency.

I admit I forgot that they didn't lose and replace as many as they usually do this past offseason. They still made way too many drastic changes imho. They weren't an offensive powerhouse last year, but they were imposing their will towards the end. Enough that I thought they could have kept with Joe's alleged game has passed him by offense instead of bringing in an entire new offesive approch with Al Saunders. Then they overpay for Archuleta. That move right there speaks volumes about how not to work FA. You don't make him the highest paid safety in league history when he isn't even in the same ballpark as the elite players at his position. Andre Carter is undersized. Lloyd and Randel El have yet to produce. Cooley is no longer playing his H-back role and his production has suffered as a result. So they bring in all these new weapons to spite last years weapons.They add all these players and ignore the QB position! They trade away a 3rd rounder for TJ Duckett. Somebody who as far as I know, hasn't gotten a carry in the regular season.The only thing keeping this team from a 6 win season is IMHO, Gregg Williams. He gets more out of that defense then I think just about any coach in the league would. There isn't one defensive linemen on that team that couldn't be replaced. Again, thats my opinion. I know I am biased, so take it with a grain of salt.I am just calling it how I see it.

 

[redman]

Believe me, I'm not arguing perfection. Even the best teams miss on some players.

Archuleta remains my least favorite FA signing since Gibbs returned. While theoretically his blitz skills should make an awesome fit for Williams' defense, I'd still prefer a guy with better coverage skills than he has. And then of course, there's the price tag.

The Duckett situation has already been addressed but I freely admit that in hindsight they may well come out behind in that exchange.

If it was two weeks ago I'd agree with you in doubting whether the change to Saunders was worth it. The offense is starting to come alive and from here on out figures IMHO to resemble what we've seen in the past two weeks far more than what we saw in the first two.

 

[DCThunder]

Believe me, I'm not arguing perfection. Even the best teams miss on some players. Archuleta remains my least favorite FA signing since Gibbs returned. While theoretically his blitz skills should make an awesome fit for Williams' defense, I'd still prefer a guy with better coverage skills than he has. And then of course, there's the price tag. The Duckett situation has already been addressed but I freely admit that in hindsight they may well come out behind in that exchange. If it was two weeks ago I'd agree with you in doubting whether the change to Saunders was worth it. The offense is starting to come alive and from here on out figures IMHO to resemble what we've seen in the past two weeks far more than what we saw in the first two.

I agree too that I'd rather have Ryan Clark than Archeleta, but the Andre Carter signing may still work out in the long run. I also think that once Springs comes back, Gregg Williams will be able to turn the dogs loose to really rush the passer.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Nothing this season seems to indicate that - barring cataclysmic injury which you cannot predict - Duckett will see anything but MAYBE limited action.

I expect more of the same next year if he's with the team unless Betts leaves.

 

[CrossEyed]

Nothing this season seems to indicate that - barring cataclysmic injury which you cannot predict - Duckett will see anything but MAYBE limited action.I expect more of the same next year if he's with the team unless Betts leaves.

He's UFA. If he isn't going to play in Washington this year why would he sign with them next year?

 

[SSOG]

You as a Broncos fan should of all people appreciate what the Redskins do to team-build. The Broncos like the 'Skins use all of their cap room every year and heavily pursue FA's. It's no coincidence that Daryl Gardener went as a FA from the 'Skins to the Broncos, though ironically it was the Broncos who gave him a large, multi-year contract despite his bad injury and attitude history. The Broncos too traded up and arguably overpaid to secure a would-be franchise QB of the future this draft the way that the 'Skins did last year, and I don't see a glittering history of making every draft pick count in Denver either.

I do understand what the Redskins are doing to team-build. It's a pretty savvy business plan- they understand that future dollars are worth less than current dollars, because the cap keeps increasing. If this year's cap is $90 million, and next year's is $100 million, then they spend $100 million this season and push the extra back a year. Then when next year rolls around, they spend $110 million and push the extra back because they know the cap will continue to grow. It's a sound business strategy, but it's not a strategy that leads to compiling some quality depth, and it is most certainly *NOT* how the Denver Broncos conduct their business.First off, name the marquee free-agent acquisitions Denver has made over the past 3 years. You have the Cleveland D-Line, but that was hardly a "marquee" acquisition, given that all 4 players were acquired for less money than the departed Reggie Hayward received all by his lonesome in Jacksonville. That was more of a "bargain basement veteran addition" more in line with New England acquiring Rodney Harrison. There was also the Lynch pickup, which again was pretty much EXACTLY like the Rodney Harrison addition (old FA who was cut by his former team and considered washed up). Outside of the Cleveland defensive line or Lynch, name ONE free agent acquired by Denver in the past 3 years. Any one will do. I suspect you're going to struggle here, because the highest-profile free agency moves Denver has made during that span are resigning Ian Gold (who was originally a Denver draft choice who spent a year in Tampa Bay as a reserve linebacker), resigning Keith Burns (another original Denver draft choice who spent a year as a TB Reserve LB), and adding Adam Meadows (a reserve offensive tackle who spent a couple of years out of football).Also, if you think that Denver hasn't made its draft picks count, then you haven't been paying attention. Denver has been arguably one of the top-5 drafting franchises in the league this millennium. The only teams that have had arguably more success out of their high draft choices (first two rounds) are Indy and Pittsburgh.I also haven't heard anyone arguing that the Broncos overpaid to get Jay Cutler, either, especially since a lot of people said that Cutler is arguably the best QB in a QB-rich draft who wasn't expected to fall much outside of the top-10, while Campbell was pretty much universally seen as the 3rd-best QB in the worst QB draft in a long time and generally wasn't expected to go before the second round. Let's actually further compare the two trades. Denver traded up immediately before they selected, and nobody in the world expected them to take Cutler (mostly because they hadn't so much as WORKED OUT a single QB that season). Washington traded up before the draft ever started, and everyone in the world knew they were trading up to get Campbell. Seriously, *EVERYONE* knew it. Not only was the trade less of a reach, Denver never broadcast its intentions (imagine how stupid Washington would have felt if someone wanted Campbell worse, traded up to 24th, and took him before they had a shot at him). In fact, the fact that nobody DID trade up to get Campbell pretty much proves that every other team in the NFL agrees that Campbell was a reach where he went.Let's further look at the cost. Denver wound up paying a 3rd rounder (68th overall) to move up 4 slots at the top of the draft (moving up at the top of the draft holds more value than moving up at the bottom of the first round). Washington wound up trading a third rounder (72nd overall) and a fourth rounder for the right to move *DOWN* in the draft, since the 1st rounder they gave up in 2006 was actually 4 slots better than the 1st rounder they gained in 2005.There's a reason why you see people panning the Campbell move but not the Cutler move. It's because the Cutler move was masterfully done, while the Campbell move was a total fiasco.Anyway, I'll assert again... if you think that Denver runs its franchise like Washington, you couldn't be further from the truth. Denver believes in looking towards the future. While they are tight against the cap every year, there is virtually no "dead money" on Denver's books. Washington believes in mortgaging the future for the present. They also spend up tight against the cap, but there's a huge chunk of dead money on the books. Denver believes in drafting best player available, trading up for Cutler when QB was one of the lowest priorities for this team this year. Washington believes in overpaying based on need, making a bad trade to get Campbell last year and then overpaying to move up and take Rocky McIntosh at OLB this year. They also blatantly broadcast both moves, and some people believe that broadcasting this year might have actually cost them their TRUE target, D'Qwell Jackson, who went a pick before. Denver believes in loading up on draft picks to secure cheap depth, executing 22 draft selections in the last 3 years (over 7 a year). Washington believes in NOT executing draft selections, and has the fewest draft picks since Snyder came to town. Denver believes in bringing in cheap, undervalued free agents, such as John Lynch and the Browncos. Washington believes in bringing in expensive, flashy, overpaid free agents, such as Brunell and Lloyd and Archuletta and Springs. Really, there's an extremely drastic difference in team philosophies here. I'm not saying that Washington's philosophy is bad, I'm just saying that it in no way resemble's Denver's.

 

[Marvelous]

Because they hate wasting time researching for the draft.

How can you say that? Look at how their research paid off with Jason Campb.... Oh, never mind.

I don't see how that is capable of confusing. I was agreeing with Bloom that they hate wasting time researching the draft when their research results in them wasting 3 draft picks to select a guy like Jason Campbell to gather dust on their bench. They'd obviously prefer to forgo that sort of research and instead use a single draft pick to allow a guy like TJ Duckett to gather dust. HTH

Do you reach all your conclusions before all the evidence is in?In 2003, were you saying the Bengals wasted a pick on Carson Palmer because he was just collecting dust? Anyone who knows Gibbs, knew the route they would take with Campbell. They've stuck to that route and it is foolish to say they wasted picks to get him at this moment.

It's not the fact The Skins DRAFTED Campbell or that they're letting him learn from the bench first; it's the way he was aquired. They gave up way too much too get him. The Skins HAVE NO DEPTH. If it wasn't for Greg Williams being one of the best defensive coaches in the NFL with a scheme that works if you do what he tells you to the lack of talent beyond the starters would really show up. It's an organziational philosophy and I think it stems from up top, Snyder, he's used to getting his way. But he doesn't know much about football at all. They use up all their cap resources and draft picks and shoot themselves in the foot two or three seasons ahead of time by outbidding every team out there for questionable talent. Look at the Champ Bailey - Portis deal. Portis is one of the league's outstanding RB's but teams like Seattle and Indy couldn't even get a first rounder for either of their stud RB's, really even a second rounder. But, Washington gave up a complete rarity in the NFL, a shutdown corner, PLUS a second round pick for Portis to fit Gibbs power run scheme. Now in his first year of coaching, Gibbs' system proved to be antiquated and didn't work. So essentially they overpaid for a player to make their system go and the system didn't even work. The is a prime example of not getting value in your team's transactions. THE BEST MOVES THE SKINS HAVE MADE HAVE BEEN BRINGING IN GREAT COACHES. Now they are overpaying these guys too for their respective coaching positions in the NFL but at least they don't count against the salary cap. The next move the Skins could make that would reverse their fortunes would be to bring in a competent front office staff to run the franchise. Bring in some folks from the Eagles, Pats, or Ravens and let them do it THEIR way and the combination with the great coaching and actually doing things the RIGHT way personnel wise and they'd be untouchable. However, I'm not confident the Skins have figured this out yet.BTW, Al Saunders = Great Free Agent PickupGibbs isn't even running this team now, Saunders and Williams are. You have to Give Gibbs credit for smartly handing over the reigns.

Actually, Joe Gibbs is in charge of all player personnel moves, in fact, all football operations. On the radio last week, Bram Weinstein was answering a question on who is the GM. Although the title is not used and the Redskin organization chart is very muddled, he finally answered Joe Gibbs appears to be involved in all player personnel moves EXCEPT the draft, which Vinny Cerato runs.Also, if you had heard interviews with Joe Gibbs over the last couple of years, he loves the way the Redskins acquire players in free agency. His thinking and agressiveness is in lockstep with Daniel Snyder on this. His big departure from what Snyder did in the past: Gibbs will only go after players who will make "good Redskins."

 

[Marvelous]

actually, Gibbs has been clear, if Brunell gets injured or benched due to bad play, Campbell would be the starter. If Brunell is injured during a game, Collins would finish it, but the next week, and the future, would belong to Campbell. So to say he can't pass Collins on the depth chart is wrong. Collins simply knows the offense better but doesn't have 1/10 the physical tools Jason does.

It's an interesting set up. My interpretation: Colins is better at running a Mark Brunell game plan. But given a full week, the staff will draw up a Jason Campbell game plan.Also, I think Brunell will need to be out by Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning for Cambell to get the start. Otherwise, Saunders will already have a Brunell game plan in place.

 

[Marvelous]

Gibbs isn't even running this team now, Saunders and Williams are. You have to Give Gibbs credit for smartly handing over the reigns.

There's a lot to disagree with in this thread, but you are clearly uninformed on this.

The offensive system is Al Saunders'. The defnsive system is Greg Williams'. One of these guys will be the head coach in a year or two after Gibbs steps down. Is Gibbs involved and the head coach? Yes. But the bulk of the coaching is coming from these two guys with Gibbs' more of a consultant and de facto head coach role. Rememebr what happened to the Skins offense when Gibbs first came in? Offense =ed PATHETIC. Gibbs had been passed by my friend. Now I do give him a lot of credit for bringing in guys LIKE Williams and Saunders? Yes but it's THEIR systems that they're working with now. So, I do agree you have a point but I think you have to concede Gibbs is one of the head coaches in the NFL right now with the least amount of control over his team.Riddle me this. If Gibbs were to step down RIGHT NOW, do you think it would make a huge difference? I don't at all.

It would make a huge difference. Gibbs is still President of Football Operations. He is the GM and makes all of the personel decisions. If the CEO of a large company steps down, does it make a big difference? They don't do the actually billing, or make sales to customers. The CEO doesn't even manage the billers or sales people. But he/she is responsible for everything and make sure everything works well together.

 

[Marvelous]

Because they hate wasting time researching for the draft.

How can you say that? Look at how their research paid off with Jason Campb.... Oh, never mind.

I don't see how that is capable of confusing. I was agreeing with Bloom that they hate wasting time researching the draft when their research results in them wasting 3 draft picks to select a guy like Jason Campbell to gather dust on their bench. They'd obviously prefer to forgo that sort of research and instead use a single draft pick to allow a guy like TJ Duckett to gather dust. HTH

Do you reach all your conclusions before all the evidence is in?In 2003, were you saying the Bengals wasted a pick on Carson Palmer because he was just collecting dust? Anyone who knows Gibbs, knew the route they would take with Campbell. They've stuck to that route and it is foolish to say they wasted picks to get him at this moment.

IMHO, when it appears you will be waiting until 2007 to take the training wheels off a guy you wasted 3 picks to take in 2004, the evidence is in. He wasn't as good as they thought. I have little doubt they would go back in time and use those picks on players who could see the field [and BTW help the team] sometime before 2007. Carson Palmer is a horrible analogy. Cincinnati demoted a QB who was arguably more successful and productive than Brunnell [Kitna] just to get Palmer on the field his sophomore year. The Redskins OTOH brought in Todd Collins to be a game day replacement for Brunnell during Campbell's sophomore year. Bottom line, if the Redskins saw Campbell as a Palmer type difference maker, he would not be languishing behind a so-so starter like Mark Brunnell, unqualified to be a game day replacement, basically interchangeable as a backup with the likes of Todd Collins.

LOL @ the rigid thinking. The QB needs the most seasoning of any position on the field. QB's have also in recent years played far longer careers - by as many as five to seven years in some cases - than they did before. Campbell is in Washington for the long haul, and they're developing him and by all accounts he's done everything they've asked him to do to learn the position. Gibbs has a long history of letting QB's absorb the game from the sideline for multiple seasons before putting them in, and notably every one of those QB's did well when then finally got their shot.

He's ready to play now in the sense that Phillip Rivers was last year or entering this season - he' can lead the team but he needs some experience on the job and will have some growing pains. This is a team, however, that is capable of getting deep into the playoffs (assuming they can continue to rebound from an 0-2 start) and their best chance to be competitive now is with Brunell, who threw for a career high in TD's last year and presently has a career high QB rating for the season.

What's so hard to understand here?

You have some points but what about this? Did they really NEED to salvage a draft class in order to trade up and get a marginal first round quarterback if he was going to sit for three years? That just doesn't make draft sense. Not at all. At least with Ramsey they played the guy but they reached to get into the first round for him too. The Skins are the absolute worst when it comes to getting value in the draft and it's not even close. Look at Mcintosh as an example from this year. Can he be a good player? Certainly! But did they get him in a smart way that made best use of the franchises assets? No. Not at all. And that's the point. You look up and down the Washington roster and it's filled with PLAYERS but you look at how they got them and you can see why they're a team that will be riddled with mediocrity. Folks, you look at Philly, Baltimore, and New England and maxmizing player aquisition value is an art form. Snyder is performing this task like a neurosurgeon doing his job with a butterknife and tablespoon and that's the best analogy I can give.

Once again, Joe Gibbs is making the decisions. And he loves getting the players he wants.

 

[Marvelous]

It's not the fact The Skins DRAFTED Campbell or that they're letting him learn from the bench first; it's the way he was aquired. They gave up way too much too get him.

What's the evidence that they overpaid? Peter King? Len Pastabelly? FBGs? It only takes one other team interested in Campbell to drive the price up. You are either saying that nobody else wanted Campbell anywhere near that spot or that he will not be a very good QB. I don't believe we have evidence of either right now.

The Skins HAVE NO DEPTH.

Welcome to the NFL. No team is loaded with depth at every position.The Skins are insanely deep at RB and WR. They are solid in LB depth. I believe they are decent at QB. I would even argue they have decent depth at DL with the emergence of two rookie DTs, but they could use help at DE. The jury is still out on the OL and DB depth isn't looking too hot right now. If Cooley went down, their TEs wouldn't produce much receiving-wise, but they'd be okay blocking.

So, please list all the teams with great depth at numerous positions.

I'll address your points here. You make intelligent arguments but I see things much differently.CAMPBELL You ask most draft experts and Campbell was an iffy first round pick. He might have been had in the second round and I'd say most teams had him graded that way. If not most, plenty; believe me. It was the same with Ramsey. Despite this, the Redskins traded all the way up to #25 and if I rememeber correctly, gave up a first round pick the following year, which the Broncos were more than willing to do because the Skins had a shot at having a Top 10 pick the next year, especially after the debut Gibbs' had. The concept of the draft is taking players in waves and developing them. Some guys in the third round end up being the best players on their teams. You get no such chance if you have no third round picks. It's like the salesman who talks to 100 people and the salesman who talks to ten. That's giving up an awful lot don't you think? And what ends up happening if you consistently draft inferior talent to plug holes you end up having to draft someone to replace them 3 years later. This is exactly what knowledgeable draft guys have said. Scouts. If I remember a scout or GM's take on the Ramsey deal he said this, "They paid Filet Mignon price for flank steak." Now flank steak can be pretty good, actually I like it if it's done right, but if I eat flank steak and it sucks AND I'm paying Filet Mignon price I'm pissed off. Very much moreso if I'm paying Filet Mignon price. Now unless it's burned badly, flank steak is still allright, even if it's not the best flank steak, but I'm not going to make the same mistake twice. I'll wait till the day I can get my money's worth thank you. I'm far happier with a bad $6 flank steak than I am a $15 one. That's easy. What's more to mention is the Skins made a bad move by trading up so early in the draft. Aaron Rogers was the much more highly regarded draft prospect, if you remember, many thought he'd go #1 overall (it was a weak draft overall) but he fell and fell and fell to Green Bay, at #24!!!!!!! One spot before the Skins drafted. Now if they had waited and traded up, do you think they could have moved in to #23 and gotten Rogers? Maybe! But they had the #25 because they were hellbent on Campbell. Now it wouldn't have taken much at all to move up a couple spots that late in the first round but you know what? The Skins had nothing left! They'd already used all their resources.

DEPTH You are correct. No team in the NFL has great depth at every position. But, you look at the difference between some of the starters for the Skins and the guys behind them and the dropff is considerable. You may be talking about in some instances a star, who more than likely is either overpaid or was aquired at great expense of multiple draft picks, and a street free agent. You look at other teams and they have a starter and then a third round draft pick whom the team plans on starting in two years when the veteran becomes overpriced or ineffective due to decline in skills. The skins have made good on a couple street type guys and undrafted free agents but in most cases there's a reason why these guys weren't picked in the draft. So what happens when your starter gets hurt? Well, on defense they're lucky to have an exceptional coach like Greg Williams is all I have to say. That guy does more with less than practically anyone in the NFL.

bleaaahhh..... gotta go to bed getting tired, insomnia gone now

I'll come back and address the rest of your points though

The big problem on the logic regarding Rogers/Cambell: Gibbs fell in love with Cambell, not Aaron Rogers. so despite most evaluating Rogers higher than Cambell, Gibbs wanted Cambell and got him. Only time will tell if Gibbs was right on this.On a side note, Gibbs benched Patrick Ramsey after the first game last year, despite lots of outcry. Look now. Ramsey is 3rd string for the Jets and reportedly was in danger of being cut. Ramsey apparently is not a starting NFL qb and Gibbs figured it out by the first game last year. My point: Gibbs does have some good history in evaluating qb talent.

 

[Marvelous]

TJ Duckett, Can someone explain why Washington traded for him?

Because the league ruled that they weren't allowed to just GIVE their draft picks away to Denver, they had to at least get something in return.

Top Ten Reasons Wash traded for Duckett

1 - He had the best Netflix reserve list.

2 - He's good to carry at least two cases for tailgating.

3 - Snazzy dresser.

4 - Brings own heating pad to keep the bench nice and warm.

5 - Prank phone call gone horribly, horribly awry.

6 - Warrick Dunn paid them to do it.

7 - When Portis said 'I'll be back soon' they thought he said 'I'd like a platoon'.

8 - Somebody has to keep Daniel Snyder's seat for him pregame.

9 - Bad intelligence from the NSA.

and the number ten reason the Washington Redskins traded for TJ Duckett --

1 - They were very, very drunk at the time.

Thank you thank you!

It might not be funny but I am high on cold medicine so who can tell....

This post (especially #5-7) needs some more love.

One other thing I'd point out in this Redskins Draft Incompetence-Fest 2006: draft picks are notoriously overvalued by teams when it comes to trading young talent.

The Redskins (after much trial and much error) have realized that it's far better to have a still-young but proven player than a draft pick that you hope will get you an equivalent player. The way that the 'Skins have adjusted what they've done in this regard is to simply ensure that the player they're acquiring is young and has his best years in front of him. Coles, Moss, Randle El, Lloyd, Carter, Griffin, Washington, Thomas, Rabach, and yes, Duckett, all fit this profile.

I think they're actually ahead of the curve on this. Many draft picks don't pan out, but few FA's fail to at least approximate the player they have been to date.

Yes and no. On the one hand, free agents have a much higher success rate. On the other hand, free agents are a *LOT* more expensive. Theoretically, you could get a mediocre FA CB for $2 million a year, or you could burn 4 7th rounders on CBs, pay them all $500,000 a year, and have one of the four turn out to be mediocre. Comparable production at a fraction of the cost. That's one of the big reasons why Washington is so depth-starved- free agent splashes make for great starters, but rookies make for some FANTASTIC quality depth.Also, for all this talk about how Washington keeps bringing in players who are young and have their best years in front of them... has anyone ever noticed that Washington spends an equal amount of time saying goodbye to players that are young and have their best years in front of them? Sure, they got Moss, but they parted with Coles to do it. Sure, they got Portis, but they had to let Bailey walk in the process. Yes, Shawn Springs has played very well for them, but so did Fred Smooth, who they let leave to make room for Springs. I really don't see any net gains in quality young players here, because for every quality young FA they bring in, they have to let another one walk away.

This history is not quite accurate.Champ Bailey: the Redskins negotiated with Bailey extensively. Word was getting out that they were NOT going to agree to terms. Scenarios started floating whether the Redskins would franchise Bailey. Because Bailey was unsignable, it also lowered his trade value. Once again, Gibbs loved Portis and saw the opportunity to get him and went for it. That's what Gibbs does.

Smoot: The Redskins tried to sign Smoot, but could not come to terms. He hit free agency and received a better offer from Minny. Not clear if Smoot gave the Redskins a chance to match.

 

[Marvelous]

Phuuulease. I agree with all of your assessment, except for the last part. If the Redskins wanted to keep Smoot and Pierce, they could have easily kept them. The Redskins do the jobs of the players union for them by upping the ceiling for players every single season. They said Pierce and Smoot were "core guys" and wanted to keep them. What did the Redskins do? They did what they always do. They let their own talent walk, and then brought in over paid FA's.Now the one difference between the old Snyder led teams and the teams under Gibbs the last two years, is that they are getting young players.The Redskins problem is still the same. They have too much player turnover each off season. The don't keep their own. And when you do those two things, you just can't have a healthy team chemistry capable of going to the Super Bowl. Maybe they can haphazardly win anywhere from 8 to 10 games, but until they relax in the off season, and keep the majority of their players, they won't be able to compete with better run franchises with stability.

What turnover? New offensive starters consist of . . . Lloyd. You could include Randle El to the extent that you view the base offense as a 3 WR offense. New defensive starters consist of Carter and Archuleta. That's 3 or 4 new starters out of 22. Where's the huge turnover? Even last year their new starters were Rabach, Moss, and Patten on offense, and Holdman and Rogers on defense, so 5/22. I'd venture to guess that that's as good or better stability than you'd see on at least half of the teams in the league in any given year. Again, everyone needs to reexamine what the team has done since January 2004. It's an entirely different approach. You're going to miss that if all you do is roll your eyes and see another headline that has the Redskins signing another FA. Believe me, we're not having this conversation three years ago. Regarding Smoot and Pierce, these are the best two examples of "FA's who got away", but I stand by the fact that it's not for lack of trying to resign them. Pierce in particular was a loss I didn't like and still don't like - he's a very underrated player and team leader, and Lemar Marshall as diligent as he is just isn't the at the same level. Smoot was an above average cover corner, nothing more, who wanted top dollar to be recognized as a top CB. (Now that he's bulked up and dedicated himself to more run support this year I'm curious to see how he does but that wasn't his profile two years ago.) I personally think he wanted too much money. Nevertheless, as with Pierce, the team offered very comparable salary and bonus, and he opted to go elsewhere for slightly more rather than stay with the team. That's the nature of free agency.

I admit I forgot that they didn't lose and replace as many as they usually do this past offseason. They still made way too many drastic changes imho. They weren't an offensive powerhouse last year, but they were imposing their will towards the end. Enough that I thought they could have kept with Joe's alleged game has passed him by offense instead of bringing in an entire new offesive approch with Al Saunders. Then they overpay for Archuleta. That move right there speaks volumes about how not to work FA. You don't make him the highest paid safety in league history when he isn't even in the same ballpark as the elite players at his position. Andre Carter is undersized. Lloyd and Randel El have yet to produce. Cooley is no longer playing his H-back role and his production has suffered as a result. So they bring in all these new weapons to spite last years weapons.They add all these players and ignore the QB position! They trade away a 3rd rounder for TJ Duckett. Somebody who as far as I know, hasn't gotten a carry in the regular season.The only thing keeping this team from a 6 win season is IMHO, Gregg Williams. He gets more out of that defense then I think just about any coach in the league would. There isn't one defensive linemen on that team that couldn't be replaced. Again, thats my opinion. I know I am biased, so take it with a grain of salt.I am just calling it how I see it.

I actually have an opposite opinion. This year, the defense looks suspect. And they are clearly not blitzing as aggressively as they have in the past. Against Jacksonville, they blitzed more aggressively, and got burned bad, mutliple times.So based on your analysis, the Redskins are destine for 4-6 wins. Yet they are 2-2.

 

[Marvelous]

Believe me, I'm not arguing perfection. Even the best teams miss on some players. Archuleta remains my least favorite FA signing since Gibbs returned. While theoretically his blitz skills should make an awesome fit for Williams' defense, I'd still prefer a guy with better coverage skills than he has. And then of course, there's the price tag. The Duckett situation has already been addressed but I freely admit that in hindsight they may well come out behind in that exchange. If it was two weeks ago I'd agree with you in doubting whether the change to Saunders was worth it. The offense is starting to come alive and from here on out figures IMHO to resemble what we've seen in the past two weeks far more than what we saw in the first two.

Quite frankly, I am baffled by the Archuleta signing. I assumed they would resign Ryan Clark. Clark is one young player they really did let walk away without trying to resign.I am baffled by the Duckett trade. When they made it, I assumed Portis and/or Betts would miss many games this season. Maybe Portis healed faster than they thougtht. And Betts hasn't gotten injured again, making the Duckett trade look frivilous. But that is all conjecture.I know Gibbs believes you need two starting quality rbs. So the Duckett trade spoke volumes on how the coaches feel about Cartright and Broughton.

 

[Donnybrook]

TJ Duckett, Can someone explain why Washington traded for him?

Snyder thought TJ would prevent Brandon Lloyd from getting too lonely sitting by himself on the bench.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I think it was a .

^^^ appreciation retirement of schtick that dare not speak it's name

Actually they probably thought Portis was more seriously hurt than it ended up being.

-QG

 

[AB in DC]

Actually, Joe Gibbs is in charge of all player personnel moves, in fact, all football operations. On the radio last week, Bram Weinstein was answering a question on who is the GM. Although the title is not used and the Redskin organization chart is very muddled, he finally answered Joe Gibbs appears to be involved in all player personnel moves EXCEPT the draft, which Vinny Cerato runs.

If that's true, then maybe it's a good thing that Washington trades most of their draft picks.

 

[skillz]

back to duckett, is this guy ever gonna get a chance to hit the field this year. What about next year does any team go after him and make him their starter?Does duckett hold any value right now or in the future?

Anyone have any other thoughts on this? Duckett is on the waiver wire in my keeper league. I am tempted to grab him now to have him for next year. It wouldn't cost me much to protect him for next year since he is a waiver wire pick up. Obviously, the only way he is going to have any value though is if he goes to another team after the season, or the Skins keep him as a backup for Portis next year.

 

[dgreen]

There has been talk out of Redskins Park this week about using Duckett. Seven plays inside the 5 against Dallas failed to score (5 by Portis, 1 by Betts, and 1 pass), so they may consider giving him some short yardage carries.

 

[Rockchild]

In a dynasty league Duckett would be a wildcard-hope-for-chance-next-year pickup with some upside and very little risk. I've never been sold on him as a feature back but as a situational player he could have some value. I could see Tampa Bay picking him up as a replacement for Alstott who is close to retiring. IF he pans out great if not no problem to drop him. This is all dependant on the size of your roster and league size.

IIRC, Collins was brought in to explain and teach the nuances of Saunders offensive system which is why he would be inserted into the game if(or should that be when!!!) Brunell gets injured during a game.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Because Washington likes to make big deals about 'big deals'.

They didn't need Ashley Lelie, as they have enough overhyped, undersized and overpaid WRs - so they got involved in the trade.

 

[citsalp]

I don't think it's been mentioned, but I can assure you part of the Falcons red zone woes, are due to no TJ. I'm a fan of the Falcons, the staff will never admit to it...but they miss him. IMHO

 

[redman]

Because Washington likes to make big deals about 'big deals'.They didn't need Ashley Lelie, as they have enough overhyped, undersized and overpaid WRs - so they got involved in the trade.

LOL @ Grid, the one-trick pony bashing the 'Skins again. When's Rex Grossman going to take the field again for your Bears? The old woman throwing the ball for the them right now sure is holding them back.

 

[SSOG]

Because Washington likes to make big deals about 'big deals'.They didn't need Ashley Lelie, as they have enough overhyped, undersized and overpaid WRs - so they got involved in the trade.

This just in! I have word from reliable sources that the Washington Redskins have traded their 1st and 6th round picks in 2008 and a conditional 5th round pick in 2009 to Denver for a stick of chewing gum and the rights to John Elway. I hear that that the 5th rounder in 2009 can become as high as a 3rd if the chewing gum proves to be cinnamon.I also hear word from Dove Valley that they're still hammering out the details, but that Denver is very close to closing a deal to send Washington's 2008 6th rounder back to them in exchange for their 2008 7th rounder and their 2009 4th rounder. I'll keep you posted on any new developments as they break.

 

[SteelerMurf]

There has been talk out of Redskins Park this week about using Duckett. Seven plays inside the 5 against Dallas failed to score (5 by Portis, 1 by Betts, and 1 pass), so they may consider giving him some short yardage carries.

Duckett has only carrried the ball in one game this year and has only worn a Skins uni twice....Unless they start inactivating another player, TJ remains on the bench without a helmet at that.

 

[redman]

There has been talk out of Redskins Park this week about using Duckett. Seven plays inside the 5 against Dallas failed to score (5 by Portis, 1 by Betts, and 1 pass), so they may consider giving him some short yardage carries.

Duckett has only carrried the ball in one game this year and has only worn a Skins uni twice....Unless they start inactivating another player, TJ remains on the bench without a helmet at that.

David Patten won't be active due to injury; Moss is a game time decision.