Let's Review A Couple of Great Redskins Moves That Were Criticized

[bulldog]

1. Signing Shawn Springs, 29, to a free agent contract before the 2004 season. National media idiots thought the Skins gave him too much and should have waited to sign Bobby Taylor. Well, Taylor at 32 now appears shot while Springs had close to a pro bowl season. Springs won't be the one released June 1

2. Signing Cornelius Griffin, 27, from the Giants. Again, the $8 million bonus was considered by the ESPN crowd as being typical Redskins overspending. Meanwhile, the team 'should' have signed John Thornton or Bryan Robinson. Griffin was a pro bowl alternate while Thornton is competing for a DT spot in Cincinnati (home of the 27th ranked defense) and Robinson was in Miami for a cup of coffee visit before signing with the same Bengals to compete for a bench position at age 30.

Sometimes the best deals are the ones that are NOT done

By the way, I am still waiting for Danny Wuerffel's 3,700 yard, 30 touchdown breakout season in the NFL (Peter King) and for a retraction from Pat Kirwan from last preseason that the Redskins had one of the worst defensive lines in the NFL.

[spiral]

Excellent!

[SkinsGuy]

Too true, Bulldog.

The fact that many of these so-called "experts" are now saying the Redskins won't do any better in the win-loss colunm than last year has me smiling.

It means good times are ahead.

[Art]

The simple fact of the matter is an overwhelming number of acquisitions have been good one's and those that have been bad, generally, go bad due to poor coaching or a poor fit with the changing systems we've seen.

Only Mark Brunell is a player you could consider a true bust as a free agent/trade acquisition since Snyder took over, though, one could argue, perhaps, that Mark Carrier likewise qualifies. Chad Morton would be an example of a very intelligent free agent acquisition for one system but a guy who never quit replicated his better return seasons, and in another system, seems to be a poor fit.

What the Redskins need to do now is sit still in a stable, effective offensive and defensive system and build for that system for a couple of years. Unfortunately Spurrier's system wasn't going to work the way he coached it, so time would not have altered that a great deal. But, Gibbs has coached HIGHLY successful offensive systems built on a foundation still used in today's NFL.

He has a game-breaking running back to cater this system to, with a very strong offensive line leading the way. Quick, playmaking receivers on the outside to further open things up and you can see a team that has the makings of a different look this year on offense, built for specific weaknesses of a year ago, and likely to appear far different given those changes.

[The Sisko]

I have to admit that I was worried about both the Springs signing and the Brunell signing last offseason. Springs has worked out well and Boo-nell....is, well self explanatory.

However what's different now is that we're clearly pursuing a well thought out, systematic and yes, dare I say it-even coherent strategy of building a TEAM. In the past we seemed to bring in players in "trading card" fashion..."Oooh, Player X is good, let's get him!!" Now, our aquisitions seem to be much more well thought out with regard to how the player will fit in with what we're trying to do and what our long term objectives are.

With that in mind even though he ultimately proved to be a bust, Brunell wasn't entirely a "bad" signing. He was a guy who, if he'd still been what he was, would have fit Gibbs' system well. Contrast that with signing a guy like Trotter who had a good bit left in the tank, yet wasn't capable of doing what Lewis' system required of him.

You'll never build a team using the thought process that brought us guys like Trotter. OTOH the way we're doing things now assures that even though we may miss with some guys (i.e. Brunell) when that doesn't happen we'll have a productive player.

Now, jump ahead to the present. Gibbs, seeing the potential for disaster ahead at QB IF Ramsey doesn't work out, drafts a guy who fits his system...decent mobility, big arm, good accuracy, ran a similar system in college. The same thought process was at work with drafting Rogers to replace Springs down the road as well. So, where others shortsightedly see "No Mike Williams:wtf:" I see a team addressing needs crucial for long term successs.

So in short, while I've disagreed with some of our moves, I'm really beginning to like our reasoning and overall direction under Gibbs. I think it's going to pay off for us in a year or so....or perhaps a bit earlier;)

[wskin44]

The critics will never admit their mistakes, they just move on to new ones. The coaches have their won-lost records so they are held accountable. The critics just disappear like ****roaches into the night when their babble turns out wrong.

[redman]

Peter King is a NFL gossip columnist, not a talent evaluator.

You might add to the list, 'dog, how much we regretted Smoot's second round selection in 2001, per King's "promise".

[ummagumma]

Originally posted by Art

The simple fact of the matter is an overwhelming number of acquisitions have been good one's and those that have been bad, generally, go bad due to poor coaching or a poor fit with the changing systems we've seen.

But isn't that an important part of the process? Players are only as good as their systems. So when viewed in that context the majority of moves the Redskins have made are bad based on the most important measurement which is winning and losing. Management should be viewed not just by player acquisition but it's synergy with coaching hiring/decisions/philosophy. At some point Redskin management has failed. If you want to hold on to the notion that so many players picked up were / are great and the contracts are brilliantly crafted, then, obviously, some part of the team really stinks. Coaching? Fine, but coaches don't come from thin air. The very same people who are ultimately responsible for player acquisition are also responsible for coach hiring. So, if they fail miserably at one side of the equation, forgive me for not buying into the notion they're wonderful in other areas.

Every year we hear the same stuff...

Hopefully this will be the year you're correct.

[Walking Deadman]

Good Points Yusuf.

[The Sisko]

Originally posted by ummagumma

But isn't that an important part of the process? Players are only as good as their systems. So when viewed in that context the majority of moves the Redskins have made are bad based on the most important measurement which is winning and losing. Management should be viewed not just by player acquisition but it's synergy with coaching hiring/decisions/philosophy. At some point Redskin management has failed. If you want to hold on to the notion that so many players picked up were / are great and the contracts are brilliantly crafted, then, obviously, some part of the team really stinks. Coaching? Fine, but coaches don't come from thin air. The very same people who are ultimately responsible for player acquisition are also responsible for coach hiring. So, if they fail miserably at one side of the equation, forgive me for not buying into the notion they're wonderful in other areas.

Every year we hear the same stuff...

Hopefully this will be the year you're correct.

You make a good point but don't waste your breath Ummagumma. I've tried already-to no avail. You just can't talk any sense into the guy

[Mr. S]

well, that is why we have stayed pretty quiet this season. Patten was a receiver Gibbs wanted. Was Moss? Who knows, but we will find out soon enough.

Also, dont forget, we did get some bad press for our secondary, not only for signing Springs, but having no legit nickelback. They claimed Walt Harris was a guy that will be hampered by injuries, but he stood strong. There were also doubts on who would play beside Taylor, and we now have 3 guys who can, Clark, Lott, Bowen.