Were teams like Wash and Cle (1 Viewer)

[Z-Dog]

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.

Portis-for-Bailey was actually Portis-for-Bailey+2nd round pick, which became Tatum Bell. I don't think that's a good deal for Washington. It worked out ok - Portis is a great RB - but that doesn't mean it was a solid move. Bailey alone is worth Portis+something, imo, and Washington ended up giving a 2nd-rounder along with probably the best CB in the game to get an RB who is excellent, but may not be in the top-5 at this position.Getting Coles only worked out OK if you like shelling out something like $20 million in bonus money over three years at only one WR position. They got a good year out of Moss, but they overpaid tremendously, if you consider all the angles.

As for Arrington, when you blow the 1.02 selection in the draft, it's a bad move. Doesn't matter what, how or why, it's a bad move. Ask the Chargers.

Pierce we agree on - and he went to a division rival, fer cryin out loud! Terrible job by Washington.

Smoot is not, imo, overrated. I think he's a top-10 CB in the NFL. And if they had him, they could have teamed him with Rogers for a great defensive backfield. One does not preclude the other.

Ramsey is another 1st-rounder the Skins screwed up on. Blame it on Spurrier if you like, it's all the Redskins organization, and they squandered another 1st-rounder on Ramsey.

And I'm not even mentioning the obvious screw-ups like Dan Wilkinson, or even the incredible salary paid to Randy Thomas, who, at the end of the day, is a good OG, not a T.

As for your last point, it's true that it takes a team to win the superbowl - a team that starts a better QB than Mark Brunell.

 

[redman]

Portis-for-Bailey was actually Portis-for-Bailey+2nd round pick, which became Tatum Bell. I don't think that's a good deal for Washington. It worked out ok - Portis is a great RB - but that doesn't mean it was a solid move. Bailey alone is worth Portis+something, imo, and Washington ended up giving a 2nd-rounder along with probably the best CB in the game to get an RB who is excellent, but may not be in the top-5 at this position.

Getting Coles only worked out OK if you like shelling out something like $20 million in bonus money over three years at only one WR position. They got a good year out of Moss, but they overpaid tremendously, if you consider all the angles.

As for Arrington, when you blow the 1.02 selection in the draft, it's a bad move. Doesn't matter what, how or why, it's a bad move. Ask the Chargers.

Pierce we agree on - and he went to a division rival, fer cryin out loud! Terrible job by Washington.

Smoot is not, imo, overrated. I think he's a top-10 CB in the NFL. And if they had him, they could have teamed him with Rogers for a great defensive backfield. One does not preclude the other.

Ramsey is another 1st-rounder the Skins screwed up on. Blame it on Spurrier if you like, it's all the Redskins organization, and they squandered another 1st-rounder on Ramsey.

And I'm not even mentioning the obvious screw-ups like Dan Wilkinson, or even the incredible salary paid to Randy Thomas, who, at the end of the day, is a good OG, not a T.

As for your last point, it's true that it takes a team to win the superbowl - a team that starts a better QB than Mark Brunell.

Again, the "paid-too-much" arguments (regarding the salary cap) make zero sense when the team is able to do what it wants year after year. That is, unless you mean with regards to the "real" money actually paid out of pocket, in which case I'd simply point out that Dan Snyder doesn't care what you think in that regard. The real problem has been that the money has been wasted by the directionless teams placed on the field, not because the players acquired haven't been good. Gibbs solved the problem of the dysfunctional football culture within the first year that he was there, and he's now building a team with an intact core of players towards a truly strong playoff run or three.

I won't go player-by-player like you did, but I'd simply say that not every player that has departed has been a player "lost" by the 'Skins; Bailey for example made it clear he wouldn't resign, so picking up Portis for him and a 2nd rounder a year before he was a UFA is a hell of a lot better than getting nothing for him a year later.

As for Brunell, I think people underestimate his talent when he's healthy, but I seem to recall lesser lights like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Kerry Collins, and even Ben Roethlisberger* piloting their teams to the Super Bowl and even winning there. If they can do it, a healthy Mark Brunell can do it too if the team around him is solid - and it is.

*Let the flaming begin

 

[jsargos]

Portis-for-Bailey was actually Portis-for-Bailey+2nd round pick, which became Tatum Bell. I don't think that's a good deal for Washington. It worked out ok - Portis is a great RB - but that doesn't mean it was a solid move. Bailey alone is worth Portis+something, imo, and Washington ended up giving a 2nd-rounder along with probably the best CB in the game to get an RB who is excellent, but may not be in the top-5 at this position.

Washington also took part of the money they weren't paying Bailey and signed Shawn Springs. So if you really want to look at the whole picture they traded Bailey and Bell for Portis and Springs. Considering Springs has played at a pro-bowl level for the last 2 years, and Bell is about to leap frogged by Ron Dayne on the Denver depth chart, I think the trade worked out great for Washington.

Getting Coles only worked out OK if you like shelling out something like $20 million in bonus money over three years at only one WR position. They got a good year out of Moss, but they overpaid tremendously, if you consider all the angles.

What angles? Coles was a restricted Free Agent so the Skins had to pay a premium or the Jets just would have matched. Plus, his signing bonus was $13M. You can argue that it was too much, but again, they had to pay a premium and at the time it wasn't considered outrageous for a guy coming off a 90 catch, 1300 yard season. And considering Coles was traded for Moss, who was the #2 receiver in the league last year, I don't understand what there is to complain about?

As for Arrington, when you blow the 1.02 selection in the draft, it's a bad move. Doesn't matter what, how or why, it's a bad move. Ask the Chargers.

You're kidding right? Arrington was the best player on the team for several years before he started to pick up injuries. He was considered the franchise player before he got hurt, how is that blowing the pick?

Pierce we agree on - and he went to a division rival, fer cryin out loud! Terrible job by Washington.

Agreed. The Skins made him a comparebale offer. For his own reasons he decided to move on.

Smoot is not, imo, overrated. I think he's a top-10 CB in the NFL. And if they had him, they could have teamed him with Rogers for a great defensive backfield. One does not preclude the other.

Smoot was so good that he couldn't get his job back from Brian Williams after he was hurt last season, and it wasn't because of his health.

Ramsey is another 1st-rounder the Skins screwed up on. Blame it on Spurrier if you like, it's all the Redskins organization, and they squandered another 1st-rounder on Ramsey.

Okay, name a team that has never blown a first round pick? Particularly first round QBs? Considering the Skins have drafted Jon Jansen, Chris Samuels, LaVar Arrington, Shawn Taylor, and Carlos Rogers in recent years I think they've done fairly well in the first round. I'll readily admit however they haven't done very much with their later round picks. Outside of Chris Cooley, and to a lesser extent Ladell Betts they haven't had anyone make much of an impact. Lemar Marshall and Mike Sellers are decent players who were picked up as undrafted FAs.

And I'm not even mentioning the obvious screw-ups like Dan Wilkinson, or even the incredible salary paid to Randy Thomas, who, at the end of the day, is a good OG, not a T.

Dan Wilkinson was a pretty decent player for the Skins. Maybe you are thinking of Dana Stubblefield who was a complete bust. If you doubt how valuable Randy Thomas was, look at how stagnant the running game was in the playoffs. It was painful to watch when Cory Raymer had to go in at guard.

As for your last point, it's true that it takes a team to win the superbowl - a team that starts a better QB than Mark Brunell.

Yeah, because you need a great QB to win the Super Bowl. Like Trent Dilfer, or Brad Johnson, or Mark Rypien, or Ben (9-21, 123, 0-2) Roethlisberger.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Yes, and until 45 days ago the Steelers were considered a major underachiever and disappointment during the salary cap era.

5 AFC title games before winning it all under Cowher? I'm pretty depressed as a Steeler fan. I'd much rather finish w/o a division title and not be ridiculed for not winning the Super Bowl for years.

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 during Cowher's tenure, I must agree, they've been horrible despite losing coordinator after coordinator and only finally getting it done when their old D guru returned. Oh yeah! They finally got a QB that could start for more than 10 NFL teams. Go Kordell! Buy any Maddox Life Insurance lately? :X

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

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.

Yeah, Pitt, Philly and Indy have been pretty poor lately. But to make a point, Philly and Indy are going downhill a little due to overpaying WRs (and Manning). Anybody would agree that landing a future HOF QB in the 6th will tend to make your team a little better.

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.

Thank-you for summarizing my point after arguing against it for a page and a half - FA, draft and coaching. I was saying that backing yourself into a corner by overpaying for the name and not the production really limits your ability to keep your own players around (which your team would know their worth better than FAs). I'm not saying that using FA the least is key. Using it WISELY is what's important. For your info, re-signing your own FAs does count.Sorry to go all PMS and leave sarcasm stains on the wall, but if any post I've seen lately deserves it...

 

[fatness]

Smoot is not, imo, overrated. I think he's a top-10 CB in the NFL.

I was hanging in there OK reading your post until I got to that part. Beaten deep more than any DB in the league 2 years in a row ------ um, that's not an honor. He does have a career as a sailor, it appears, so all is not lost.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Smoot is not, imo, overrated. I think he's a top-10 CB in the NFL.

I was hanging in there OK reading your post until I got to that part. Beaten deep more than any DB in the league 2 years in a row ------ um, that's not an honor. He does have a career as a sailor, it appears, so all is not lost.

Smoo, or Smoot?