What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Were teams like Wash and Cle (1 Viewer)

Sea Bass

Footballguy
It seems that some teams had a game plan for the moment free agency became available, while others were sitting back watching teams like Washington, Minnesota, and Cleveland stockpile players.

Many inactive teams, with lots of cap space, failed to meet their needs. My question is; Were these teams not prepared to act or did they choose to sit on their hands?

:confused:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's only so many big name players to go around. Bentley signed with his hometown team. There was little chance another team would get him unless they paid a significant amount more than CLE.

Washington has Dan Snyder - He spends like this every year.

The CBA agreement also changed things a lot. Many teams that were going to have an upperhand signing FAs lost it once the new CBA was agreed upon because of the added cap space. Also, players like Julian Peterson, Arrington, Rocky Bernard and Terrell Owens are still out there.

I wouldn't say it was because other teams were more prepared neccesarily. I think it's just the way things turned out.

 
Washington has Dan Snyder - He spends like this every year.
This is overly dismissive. Yes, they spend, but what's clear is that they target certain players in advance, and they're known for hosting the players and not letting them leave (even to visits with other teams) without signing a contract. Archuleta and Randle-El are prime examples - both had visits scheduled with the Bears, but neither one made that visit because they stopped in Washington first. You can criticize the 'Skins for their talent evaluation - that's perfectly fair. But their signing of players definitely has a design to it that couldn't have just happened by coincidence.

 
I saw Ralph Wilson say that he voted against the cba because he "didn't understand how it worked"..........I am just wondering out loud if other teams are acting that way. As a Seattle fan, I am disappointed by the "slick" move that Minny used on Hutchinson, but I respect how they used the system for their advantage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many teams like the Hawks, Colts, New England, Pittsburgh also wait till the overspending spree is over and cash in on great contracts with quality players.

It is also these teams that do not have glaring needs that they do not need to get into bidding wars over and become part of the beginning FA frenzy.

Washington has yet to realize that a contender is not built by buying a team based on whats available in the FA market, but actually building your draft picks and current players.

 
For instance, the Jets just spent 9.2 million on a 35 year old DL who certainly hasn't ever played at a pro bowl level. They seem to be reacting late to the fa situation, while the proactive teams have gained instant credibility.

I agree with fridayfrenzy in that established teams are in a position to wait bacause they have limited needs, but for struggling teams to sit still doesn't make much sense to me............

...........Of course I don't sign the checks.

 
While I have said that the Skins have over paid for players, they sure seemed to have an agenda. They knew what they wanted and went out and got it. Very impressive. We will have to see if it pays off.

The Browns are a class organization and I think they are going to get this ship turned around.

 
Were teams like Wash and Cle, More informed/prepared for FA
Yes, they were.
How so?Just because they were part of the overspending spree in free agency?
"overspending spree"? Good to see you don't have your mind made up on this issue. :hophead:
It is this time of free agency where teams overspend on players because they are trying to outbid one another or not let the player leave to go visit another team. You disagree?

I never said that all signings in this period were bad contracts, but it is this time when the most happen. JJ took less money from the Browns comapred to what Seattle was offering because he wanted to go back to Cleveland. I realize that there are decent contracts at this time, but many teams are reaching or panicking to make sure they get the player.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Were teams like Wash and Cle, More informed/prepared for FA
Yes, they were.
How so?Just because they were part of the overspending spree in free agency?
"overspending spree"? Good to see you don't have your mind made up on this issue. :hophead:
It is this time of free agency where teams overspend on players because they are trying to outbid one another or not let the player leave to go visit another team. You disagree?

I never said that all signings in this period were bad contracts, but it is this time when the most happen. JJ took less money from the Browns that Seattle was offering because he wanted to go back to Cleveland. I realize that there are decent contracts at this time, but many teams are reaching or panicing to make sure they get the player.
Where was this bidding war that you speak of? Archuleta and Randle-El didn't even visit any other teams. It comes down to talent evaluation. The 'Skins are spending what they think these guys are worth. Given their track record with the current staff in correctly targeting Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington and Shawn Springs, each of whom has played the best ball of his career in Washington, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

In addition, what's impressive to me is that they've signed relatively young FA's who in theory have plenty of good football left in them and even some untapped potential.

The original point of this thread was to examine whether certain teams are more organized and aggressive in free agency than others. The answer is clearly yes. Whether you agree with the worthiness of their efforts is a separate issue.

 
I do think that some teams are simply throwing money at their problems, but teams like Cleveland have gotten great value and filled needs at the same time.

 
The original point of this thread was to examine whether certain teams are more organized and aggressive in free agency than others. The answer is clearly yes. Whether you agree with the worthiness of their efforts is a separate issue.
Just because a team signs more players because they are spending more money, does make them more organized or prepared than a team who is not spending as much.Spending more and acquiring more does not equal more prepared.

 
It is this time of free agency where teams overspend on players because they are trying to outbid one another or not let the player leave to go visit another team.
Where was this bidding war that you speak of? Archuleta and Randle-El didn't even visit any other teams.
You seemed to have missed that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The original point of this thread was to examine whether certain teams are more organized and aggressive in free agency than others.  The answer is clearly yes.  Whether you agree with the worthiness of their efforts is a separate issue.
Just because a team signs more players because they are spending more money, does make them more organized or prepared than a team who is not spending as much.Spending more and acquiring more does not equal more prepared.
Tell that to the Chicago Bears who were apparently targeting Archuleta and Randle-El and couldn't even get a visit out of them before they signed with Washington.
 
The original point of this thread was to examine whether certain teams are more organized and aggressive in free agency than others. The answer is clearly yes. Whether you agree with the worthiness of their efforts is a separate issue.
Just because a team signs more players because they are spending more money, does make them more organized or prepared than a team who is not spending as much.Spending more and acquiring more does not equal more prepared.
Tell that to the Chicago Bears who were apparently targeting Archuleta and Randle-El and couldn't even get a visit out of them before they signed with Washington.
Which gets back to my point that Washington offered them something so good that they did not even need to go visit another place. I fail to see how signing the player before he leaves to go visit another team means that Washington got a good deal?

Please see above as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems that some teams had a game plan for the moment free agency became available, while others were sitting back watching teams like Washington, Minnesota, and Cleveland stockpile players.

Many inactive teams, with lots of cap space, failed to meet their needs. My question is; Were these teams not prepared to act or did they choose to sit on their hands?

:confused:
If you don't fall in love with some player then the best thing to do is sit back. June 1st(2nd this year?) are more cuts. There are draft day trades. Teams can simply trade with each other. etc. Most guys the first couple weeks of FA are overpaid IMO.
 
We go through this every year. :rolleyes:

Shawn Springs - washed up, no good, injury prone, blah, blah, blah. He's been the best CB on the team for two years running, and he's missed only one game each year.

Mark Brunell - washed up, overpaid, no good, same old redskins; in particular look for Prime's post near the bottom.

Santana Moss (extension) - overpriced; not a game breaker; Dan Snyder = idiot, etc.

Clinton Portis (extension) - Redskins are idiots, overspending, etc.

This is just a sampling, but you see how repetitive these comments are. And yet, this "stupid", "free-spending" team always manages to add more talent.

If you think these players aren't worth it, fine. They do, and they're signing them to contracts that, while big, don't cripple them. And now, I'm proud to say, there is more direction to the spending under Gibbs than there has ever been before.

 
We go through this every year. :rolleyes:

Shawn Springs - washed up, no good, injury prone, blah, blah, blah. He's been the best CB on the team for two years running, and he's missed only one game each year.

Mark Brunell - washed up, overpaid, no good, same old redskins; in particular look for Prime's post near the bottom.

Santana Moss (extension) - overpriced; not a game breaker; Dan Snyder = idiot, etc.

Clinton Portis (extension) - Redskins are idiots, overspending, etc.

This is just a sampling, but you see how repetitive these comments are. And yet, this "stupid", "free-spending" team always manages to add more talent.

If you think these players aren't worth it, fine. They do, and they're signing them to contracts that, while big, don't cripple them. And now, I'm proud to say, there is more direction to the spending under Gibbs than there has ever been before.
Excluding me, I am very impressed with the Redskins fans on this board. Every othere thread seems to be a witch hunt against the Redskins and each one is dealt with by the homers very well. Keep on keeping on.
 
Pro or Con I never intended this to be a Redskins thread. I simply asked for peoples opinion on how teams differ in their approach to FA. I believe that I praised the efforts of the Redskins and Browns. I am not sure what you guys are defending!

 
How so?

Just because they were part of the overspending spree in free agency?
Simple, really. They knew ahead of time who they wanted. They contacted them quickly. They signed them at a price they could afford.Quite a few other teams sat on their asses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fail to see how signing the player before he leaves to go visit another team means that Washington got a good deal?
You're talking about getting what you think is getting a good deal. The Redskins and Browns are interested in getting what they think are good players.
 
*Every team has a certain way they build. New England, Denver, Indy and Pittsburgh are debatable the four best organizations in the NFL and none of them have joined the feeding frenzy. Is that being unprepared or do they have a different take on how to build a team.

*Whether you agree or disagree Washington builds through free agency. That's how this organization conducts business. A willingness to offer large contracts doesn't really mean you are more prepared than other organizations. I'm not saying they are doing the right or wrong thing but you can't say they are more prepared by going in this direction. They are simply following their organizational philosophy.

*Cleveland has done a great job this offseason. Yet, when you have been mired in the basement for a few years that means you usually have a ton of holes that need to be addressed. By not throwing money around foolishly last offseason they put themselves in a nice position to execute this offseason. So you can say they were prepared. I believe that this year was part of a larger strategy dating back to last year and on paper it looks to be paying serious dividends.

*It's funny but people always get fired up about the teams that throw money around early in free agency. The same goes for the teams that draft WRs and RBs early. Let's let the dust clear and see what the "patient" teams do with their money before we call them unprepared. Do they get two or three quality players for the price of one big name? Do they resign core players? Or do they sit back and let the bus pass without filling holes? It's way too early to start naming winners and losers right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
*Every team has a certain way they build. New England, Denver, Indy and Pittsburgh are debatable the four best organizations in the NFL and none of them have joined the feeding frenzy. Is that being unprepared or do they have a different take on how to build a team.

*Whether you agree or disagree Washington builds through free agency. That's how this organization conducts business. A willingness to offer large contracts doesn't really mean you are more prepared than other organizations. I'm not saying they are doing the right or wrong thing but you can't say they are more prepared by going in this direction. They are simply following their organizational philosophy.

*Cleveland has done a great job this offseason. Yet, when you have been mired in the basement for a few years that means you usually have a ton of holes that need to be addressed. By not throwing money around foolishly last offseason they put themselves in a nice position to execute this offseason. So you can say they were prepared. I believe that this year was part of a larger strategy dating back to last year and on paper it looks to be paying serious dividends.

*It's funny but people always get fired up about the teams that throw money around early in free agency. The same goes for the teams that draft WRs and RBs early. Let's let the dust clear and see what the "patient" teams do with their money before we call them unprepared. Do they get two or three quality players for the price of one big name? Do they resign core players? Or do they sit back and let the bus pass without filling holes? It's way too early to start naming winners and losers right now.
Very :goodposting:
 
There are 32 teams in the NFL, Washington is ONE of them.

As a Seahawks fan I was presumed to be a whinner as soon as the Super Bowl ended. You can't be a fan of any team without shots occasionally taken.

 
I think it's safe to say that the Browns are doing the right things with Phil Savage running the show as GM. He teamed with Ozzie Newsome to form probably the best front office in football as they drafted probably a half dozen HOF'ers over the last 10 years without the benfit of a super, super high draft pick at any point.

They have made a splash early. They had a lot of holes. But I'd say it's debatable whether they "overspent" for what they got. I'm going with the give Savage the benefit of the doubt call because I respect him. The Browns under him have also had some sound drafting strategies the last couple of years, going with best player avalable rather than trying to fill holes with guys who don't have talent.. I think overall Savage has got a lot of things working for the Brownies right now (FA draft, maybe a trade) and you trust his judgement.

The Skins, well, they throw big money out every year. Probability says you will hit on at least a few of the guys if they are big named enough (i.e. former difference makers). However, I'm pretty sure Vinny Cerrato, that guy, is an idiot when it comes to football. Gibbs has brought back a lot of football sense to the organization although he was so out of touch with the NFL after his layoff that he really struggled at the coaching and team management levels initially.

As far as coaching is concerned, I think the biggest strength Gibbs has shown so far has been his willingness to change. We've heard this best player available theory with the draft but he's shown the guts to find the best coaches available and do it their way if his isn't working. They threw the big $ to keep Williams as DC. Then they bring in Saunders, O.C., Chiefs? Great move. And with the 2 new wideouts we could see the Sknis in a 3 WR set A Lot. Wow, That's a big change from what Gibbs did back in the stoneage.

I also think getting B Loyd for 3 and 4 th round picks was a fairly decent move. He's an exciting young player with a lot of upside and he's had a few years to develop. The Skins could have drafted a guy in the first this year and sat around for 3 years waiting to see him finally catch passes every Sunday. 2 picks is steep but for what they wanted, a #2 who will do something now, that's OK.

I think the Skins will make a Super Bowl run now, especially with the crazy cap thing which I don't understand. However, if I get some of it, Their's more money to be spent and Washington does have that.

I give both teams a :thumbup: so far but I still see the Skins having the potential to do stupid things, especially if it's Danny or Vinny calling the shots rather than Joe.

 
I don't think it's a matter of being patient versus aggessive. I do think it's a matter of being willing to spend or not. New England deservedly gets credit for being well-run, but few remember that Belechik's first SB team was built with a lot of free agents. Now, they were "bargain" FA's, but they were brought in from outside. And since, NE has shown a willingness to part with "core" Patriots like Milloy, Law, and now McGinest.

Those "patient" teams still spend. The teams I don't get are those that sit on money one year and seem surprised when it doesn't give them an advantage the next year against more "cap strapped" teams. The cap has been going up significantly for a while now, there's no excuse for being surprised when a team you thought was tight can suddenly be bidders again.

I'm a Skins fan, but I do think it's interesting that the trendy twist to the traditional narrative is now that the Skins don't care of their "core" players as Gibbs has promised, because New England hasn't really either. At least not all of them.

Now, I hated to lose Antonio Pierce and I'm going to miss Ryan Clark. These were guys who played unbelievably hard every week, and I'm going to root for them in New York and Pittsburgh and wherever else they go for the rest of their careers. But I do trust this coaching staff. Adam Archuleta isn't my favorite safety, but if Gregg Williams sees something in him, I trust his judgment over mine.

 
Were teams like Wash and Cle, More informed/prepared for FA
Yes, they were.
Gotta disagree here Fatness. This is like when men go Christmas shopping. They go into the store, they see the first thing that looks good and they buy it. They don't compare prices, they don't compare quality, they just want to spend and get the hell out of there. The reason Archuletta and Randell El didn't go anywhere else is that there was no way, NO WAY either would have gotten anything close to what they got in Washington. I'll bet they were both just shaking in their boots waiting to sign that contract. Kind of like when Marion Berry was about to sign city code all cracked the #### out.

I do think Randel EL and Archeletta are good additions to the Redskins but I think they overpaid in both cases and I'm not the only one who thinks as much.

 
Doesn't signing their players early mean that they have more time to learn the playbook and get to know their teammates? If the Redskins know the players they want then its best they get them quick. I care more about the team chemistry than I do about the bankroll, and I think with Gibbs in charge that won't be a problem.

 
Doesn't signing their players early mean that they have more time to learn the playbook and get to know their teammates? If the Redskins know the players they want then its best they get them quick. I care more about the team chemistry than I do about the bankroll, and I think with Gibbs in charge that won't be a problem.
Teams that rely on big team free agents usually aren't noted for chemistry. Teams that build through the draft with players who come through the ranks usually are considered to be on the same page because they only know one system. You don't have to detach them them from their previous one and than have them learn another one. Yet, in all honesty it's the teams with a great coaching staff and a strong leadership/core of players that usually integrate their players the best. I really don't think signing a big time free agent or agents early in the free agent period gives you a leg up in that department. Camps haven't even started (nor has the draft) so how are they going to get to know most of their teammates?
 
I believe that teams generally prepare for FAcy the way they prepare for the draft. If you like big names, do what you've got to do to get them. I prefer the teams that do their homework on the later moves. The draft, as well as FAcy are most effective and efficient by getting bang for the $ by making good late round picks, and getting low $ FAs that suit your needs and system.

 
Doesn't signing their players early mean that they have more time to learn the playbook and get to know their teammates?  If the Redskins know the players they want then its best they get them quick.  I care more about the team chemistry than I do about the bankroll, and I think with Gibbs in charge that won't be a problem.
Teams that rely on big team free agents usually aren't noted for chemistry. Teams that build through the draft with players who come through the ranks usually are considered to be on the same page because they only know one system. You don't have to detach them them from their previous one and than have them learn another one. Yet, in all honesty it's the teams with a great coaching staff and a strong leadership/core of players that usually integrate their players the best. I really don't think signing a big time free agent or agents early in the free agent period gives you a leg up in that department. Camps haven't even started (nor has the draft) so how are they going to get to know most of their teammates?
Well, it gives them time to buy a house, move close and they can always work out with their teammates privately. I know Moss, Portis, Taylor, and I think Rock Cartwright all work out together and hang out alot. It's not like they just sit around all offseason and get fat. Even if it's not "official" the team still does things together.Besides, everyone on the team is learning a new system. I'm pretty sure a veteran player will have an easier time learning that pro system than a rookie. Plus, these are players that were at least somewhat successful in their old systems. We know nothing about how a rookie will perform in the pros.

The Redskins do have a great leadership core and probably the best coaching staff in the league right now.

 
Doesn't signing their players early mean that they have more time to learn the playbook and get to know their teammates?  If the Redskins know the players they want then its best they get them quick.  I care more about the team chemistry than I do about the bankroll, and I think with Gibbs in charge that won't be a problem.
Teams that rely on big team free agents usually aren't noted for chemistry. Teams that build through the draft with players who come through the ranks usually are considered to be on the same page because they only know one system. You don't have to detach them them from their previous one and than have them learn another one. Yet, in all honesty it's the teams with a great coaching staff and a strong leadership/core of players that usually integrate their players the best. I really don't think signing a big time free agent or agents early in the free agent period gives you a leg up in that department. Camps haven't even started (nor has the draft) so how are they going to get to know most of their teammates?
Well, it gives them time to buy a house, move close and they can always work out with their teammates privately. I know Moss, Portis, Taylor, and I think Rock Cartwright all work out together and hang out alot. It's not like they just sit around all offseason and get fat. Even if it's not "official" the team still does things together.Besides, everyone on the team is learning a new system. I'm pretty sure a veteran player will have an easier time learning that pro system than a rookie. Plus, these are players that were at least somewhat successful in their old systems. We know nothing about how a rookie will perform in the pros.

The Redskins do have a great leadership core and probably the best coaching staff in the league right now.
They've won one playoff game in years. Let's see a little more progress on the field before we annoit them as the best franchise in the NFL.
 
Just because a lot of players sign the first week of free agency doesn't always equate to them being good values. I was shocked at what Washington paid for Randle-El. Maybe it pans out, maybe it doesn't, but there is no denying that they guaranteed him a boatload of money for someone who up until now has not produced anywhere near the value of the contract.

Bear in mind that there will again be the salary cap casualties of June 1st, thus creating some more free agents for teams to fight over.

The Patriots (and some others I believe) are $20 million under the cap. They will target other players and still have 5 months to field a team. No one wins any games in March.

As for Washington, they may somehow be within the cap this year, but rest assured they have mortgaged the future and some of these signing are going to get dumped later down the road and they will have to absorb the cap hit later on. It's a strategy--and one that has not won them any titles as of yet (at least not in the salary cap era).

I suspect that the teams that have instituted the wait and see approach to free agency may have misgaged the market, as several teams had so much money to spend with the $17 million in additional money (vs last year's salary cap) that teams have been spending like drunken sailors. The teams that have not done much may ultimately still get into bidding wars, just with each other, and those "value signings" could be overpaid signings anyway.

 
It's a strategy--and one that has not won them any titles as of yet (at least not in the salary cap era).
You're right. And to be fair, many teams following a more conservative approach to paying players have not won any titles yet in the salary cap era. The teams who win seem to be the ones who judge personnel the best and with the best coaching, both of which are separate issues from amounts spent on players.
 
  It's a strategy--and one that has not won them any titles as of yet (at least not in the salary cap era).
You're right. And to be fair, many teams following a more conservative approach to paying players have not won any titles yet in the salary cap era. The teams who win seem to be the ones who judge personnel the best and with the best coaching, both of which are separate issues from amounts spent on players.
I believe both the Steelers and the Patriots fall into the 'conservative, scouting and coaching' categories.
 
I can't speak for CLE. But from what I have seen as a WSH fan is that players love coming here for two main reasons. They know that Dan Snyder is going to throw $$$ their way, so much in fact that they are going to restructure their contract in a year or two. When they restructure money turns in to roster bonuses that are guaranteed.

 
  It's a strategy--and one that has not won them any titles as of yet (at least not in the salary cap era).
You're right. And to be fair, many teams following a more conservative approach to paying players have not won any titles yet in the salary cap era. The teams who win seem to be the ones who judge personnel the best and with the best coaching, both of which are separate issues from amounts spent on players.
I believe both the Steelers and the Patriots fall into the 'conservative, scouting and coaching' categories.
Yes, and until 45 days ago the Steelers were considered a major underachiever and disappointment during the salary cap era. Even now, is not a comparison to the Atlanta Braves teams of the same period of time appropriate when speaking of the Steelers? Might not a key FA signing or two put them over the top in any given year? The Patriots are a remarkable story and the more I've thought about it the more I believe that they're the exception, not the rule, for NFL success Consider just two key factors that allowed them to succeed:

1) they not only had a top-notch coaching staff in place, but they kept it in place long enough to form their dynasty; in particular, they benefitted from two of the best and most creative defensive and offensive minds in football, in Belichick and Weiss, respectively, at the same time;

and

2) they won the lottery with a 6th round draft pick who has turned out to be one of the best 3 or 4 QB's in the game and who seems to be on his way to the Hall of Fame; in particular, Brady is adept at spreading the ball around to many different receivers, something that is key on a team with no particular stars surrounding him on offense.

These things are not the result of "philosophy". They're what everybody strives for but NE managed to succeed for several years. What's going to be far more telling for me as to whether or not this system works is not whether NE could do this over four years with "one" team, but whether they can repeat this feat by building another champion through the same means. That's the perfect test because we know for a fact that as long as Belichick and Kraft are together, that's the "philosophy" that will be there.

NE aside, there are far more teams who have tried to do what NE has done but have failed to win championships to date. Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Diego, Indianapolis, the Jets, Chicago, and Tennessee come to mind, but that's only a few. There are a few that seem like they are or recently have been on the cusp of winning - Philadelphia, Carolina, and Cincinnati come to mind - but that's all speculation.

The bottom line: FA is one tool for building a team. The best teams are not the ones that use tools like FA the least, but the ones that use them the best in conjunction with the other assets at their disposal.

 
We go through this every year. :rolleyes:

Shawn Springs - washed up, no good, injury prone, blah, blah, blah. He's been the best CB on the team for two years running, and he's missed only one game each year.

Mark Brunell - washed up, overpaid, no good, same old redskins; in particular look for Prime's post near the bottom.

Santana Moss (extension) - overpriced; not a game breaker; Dan Snyder = idiot, etc.

Clinton Portis (extension) - Redskins are idiots, overspending, etc.

This is just a sampling, but you see how repetitive these comments are. And yet, this "stupid", "free-spending" team always manages to add more talent.

If you think these players aren't worth it, fine. They do, and they're signing them to contracts that, while big, don't cripple them. And now, I'm proud to say, there is more direction to the spending under Gibbs than there has ever been before.
No prob with Portis. Not a fan of Moss' but can see the reason to pay him big $.Brunell and Springs were both great value/moves for them I'm sure. Brunell was good for them last year but before that? IIRC He was at risk to be cut last summer or spring so his picture isn't so rosy.

Thrash walked and came back, perfect for them.

I liked Gardner, McCants, and even guy name with a D??? I'm rather surprised none of those WRs panned out. Probably a good move that they fill the WR position with free agents rather than draft picks. Didn't seem to work for them. (Similarly G-men spent a first on Jurevicious who didn't do much for them and Tim Carter, Plax signing was important)

They paid Randy Thomas big $ and I loved watching Randy with the Jets.

But there were bad moves, there were plenty that are just not coming to mind right now.

They overpaid Arrington, but....

I think Pierce is worth every penny the G-men pay him. They should have paid/kept him.

I think "Big Daddy" Wilkinson they overpaid.

Ummm sorry nothing coming to mind, long night little sleep. Certain there were goofs but can't name em'

 
I think Pierce is worth every penny the G-men pay him. They should have paid/kept him.
I loved Pierce and wanted him to return, but I think he's worth more to the Giants than to the 'Skins. The Giants LB corps was pretty thin - it actually still is but at least they have a team leader and "QB on defense" in Pierce there to run it.
 
I don't think that some teams were better prepared, but I'm sure some teams tampered more effectively than others.

As for the Skins, it's easy to cherry-pick the good players, but that doesn't mean the moves were good. Washington gave up Bailey and a pick for Portis. That's a lot for an RB. They gave Coles a huge contract and ended up trading him back to the Jets two yers later. They screwed up with Arrington and Pierce. They screwed up with Ramsey. They screwed up with Smoot. Since Snyder's come aboard, the Redskins haven't had success until last season's playoffs. And I don't think anybody believes that Brunell is taking Washington to the Superbowl, which means that with all the moves and what have you, the Redskins chances of getting to a Supebowl hinge on whether or not a Campbell is a playoff-capable QB. To me, that's not a team that is well-positioned fo a championship run.

 
I don't think that some teams were better prepared, but I'm sure some teams tampered more effectively than others.

As for the Skins, it's easy to cherry-pick the good players, but that doesn't mean the moves were good. Washington gave up Bailey and a pick for Portis. That's a lot for an RB. They gave Coles a huge contract and ended up trading him back to the Jets two yers later. They screwed up with Arrington and Pierce. They screwed up with Ramsey. They screwed up with Smoot. Since Snyder's come aboard, the Redskins haven't had success until last season's playoffs. And I don't think anybody believes that Brunell is taking Washington to the Superbowl, which means that with all the moves and what have you, the Redskins chances of getting to a Supebowl hinge on whether or not a Campbell is a playoff-capable QB. To me, that's not a team that is well-positioned fo a championship run.
I'll be the first to agree that WSH has made some mistakes. However, Portis for Baily was a good trade, Baily was not going to be back after one more year anyway, so they got what they could. Coles lost a step after he got hurt, and Coles for Moss was a awesome trade. Spurrier messed up Ramsey, he needs new scenery. Smoot and Pierce were both offered comparable contracts. They just choose to go to different teams.

All Brunell has to do is protect the ball, With the D they have with Portis they are fine. This time last year I wouldn't of said that the Steelers were well-positioned for a championship run......look how that turned out.

 
I don't think that some teams were better prepared, but I'm sure some teams tampered more effectively than others.

As for the Skins, it's easy to cherry-pick the good players, but that doesn't mean the moves were good. Washington gave up Bailey and a pick for Portis. That's a lot for an RB. They gave Coles a huge contract and ended up trading him back to the Jets two yers later. They screwed up with Arrington and Pierce. They screwed up with Ramsey. They screwed up with Smoot. Since Snyder's come aboard, the Redskins haven't had success until last season's playoffs. And I don't think anybody believes that Brunell is taking Washington to the Superbowl, which means that with all the moves and what have you, the Redskins chances of getting to a Supebowl hinge on whether or not a Campbell is a playoff-capable QB. To me, that's not a team that is well-positioned fo a championship run.
I disagree on a lot of what you said.Portis-for-Bailey has worked well for Washington. They improved at RB and did not decline at CB. They'd make that deal again in a heartbeat.

Getting Coles worked out OK, but they traded him for Moss who worked out excellently.

Arrington did himself in. They cut their losses and saved some money when it was clear he would no longer play to the level of his salary. He wants to be "the man", he won't play within a team defense concept, he got hurt and is not yet fully recovered, he slowed down.

Pierce was a good player they didn't want to lose.

Smoot was waaaaaaaaaaay overrated and it was best to let him go and draft Rogers. They did not miss Smoot, except for the excitement of seeing if he could catch the receiver he had left open who caught the ball.

Ramsey got ruined while playing under Spurrier, and may or may not be able to eventually lose his habit of holding the ball too long, and being uncertain in the pocket.

Brunell will not take them to the Super Bowl if they get there. Neither will any player. It would be a concerted team performance that would get there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that some teams were better prepared, but I'm sure some teams tampered more effectively than others.

As for the Skins, it's easy to cherry-pick the good players, but that doesn't mean the moves were good. Washington gave up Bailey and a pick for Portis. That's a lot for an RB. They gave Coles a huge contract and ended up trading him back to the Jets two yers later. They screwed up with Arrington and Pierce. They screwed up with Ramsey. They screwed up with Smoot. Since Snyder's come aboard, the Redskins haven't had success until last season's playoffs. And I don't think anybody believes that Brunell is taking Washington to the Superbowl, which means that with all the moves and what have you, the Redskins chances of getting to a Supebowl hinge on whether or not a Campbell is a playoff-capable QB. To me, that's not a team that is well-positioned fo a championship run.
I disagree on a lot of what you said.Portis-for-Bailey has worked well for Washington. They improved at RB and did not decline at CB. They'd make that deal again in a heartbeat.

Getting Coles worked out OK, but they traded him for Moss who worked out excellently.

Arrington did himself in. They cut their losses and saved some money when it was clear he would no longer play to the level of his salary. He wants to be "the man", he won't play within a team defense concept, he got hurt and is not yet fully recovered, he slowed down.

Pierce was a good player they didn't want to lose.

Smoot was waaaaaaaaaaay overrated and it was best to let him go and draft Rogers. They did not miss Smoot, except for the excitement of seeing if he could catch the receiver he had left open who caught the ball.

Ramsey got ruined while playing under Spurrier, and may or may not be able to eventually lose his habit of holding the ball too long, and being uncertain in the pocket.

Brunell will not take them to the Super Bowl if they get there. Neither will any player. It would be a concerted team performance that would get there.
:goodposting: Excellent summary. Lets also not forget the moves to bring in Griffin, Washington, Springs, Salave'a, & Daniels. Even Harris was nice stop-gap to make sure Rogers was ready. Looking at the last few years, losing Pierce is the one negative that really jumps out. The other moves have been outstanding, or at worst a wash, and helped put the Skins back in the playoffs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
35 year old DL who certainly hasn't ever played at a pro bowl level
:lmao: The Pro Bowl means nothing.
Tell that to the Browns and the fans, where we haven't had ONE Pro Bowler since Jamir Miller in '02.It means something. When you draft Pro Bowlers, it means your front office is evaluating talent correctly.

 
I don't think that some teams were better prepared, but I'm sure some teams tampered more effectively than others.

As for the Skins, it's easy to cherry-pick the good players, but that doesn't mean the moves were good. Washington gave up Bailey and a pick for Portis. That's a lot for an RB. They gave Coles a huge contract and ended up trading him back to the Jets two yers later. They screwed up with Arrington and Pierce. They screwed up with Ramsey. They screwed up with Smoot. Since Snyder's come aboard, the Redskins haven't had success until last season's playoffs. And I don't think anybody believes that Brunell is taking Washington to the Superbowl, which means that with all the moves and what have you, the Redskins chances of getting to a Supebowl hinge on whether or not a Campbell is a playoff-capable QB. To me, that's not a team that is well-positioned fo a championship run.
I disagree on a lot of what you said.Portis-for-Bailey has worked well for Washington. They improved at RB and did not decline at CB. They'd make that deal again in a heartbeat.

Getting Coles worked out OK, but they traded him for Moss who worked out excellently.

Arrington did himself in. They cut their losses and saved some money when it was clear he would no longer play to the level of his salary. He wants to be "the man", he won't play within a team defense concept, he got hurt and is not yet fully recovered, he slowed down.

Pierce was a good player they didn't want to lose.

Smoot was waaaaaaaaaaay overrated and it was best to let him go and draft Rogers. They did not miss Smoot, except for the excitement of seeing if he could catch the receiver he had left open who caught the ball.

Ramsey got ruined while playing under Spurrier, and may or may not be able to eventually lose his habit of holding the ball too long, and being uncertain in the pocket.

Brunell will not take them to the Super Bowl if they get there. Neither will any player. It would be a concerted team performance that would get there.
:goodposting: Excellent summary. Lets also not forget the moves to bring in Griffin, Washington, Springs, Salave'a, & Daniels. Even Harris was nice stop-gap to make sure Rogers was ready. Looking at the last few years, losing Pierce is the one negative that really jumps out. The other moves have been outstanding, or at worst a wash, and helped put the Skins back in the playoffs.
:goodposting: & :goodposting:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top