In hindsight, giving up 2006 first round #20 - 32 for Campbell...

[FootballGuy2677]

I know its hard to believe, but Joe Gibbs a Hall of Fame coach actually knows what he's doing. :gus:

ive been saying that to myself all along:cool:

[e16bball]

As to the Campbell vs. DE debate...

Last season, at pick 25, the best possible DE available was probably Matt Roth, or maybe the DE/OLB tweener Dan Cody. Cody is obviously out because we have no need for such a player, and so we consider Roth, who has mustered a whole 10 tackles and 0 sacks thus far. He would provide little to no improvement over the guys we have in there at this point.

This season, in the lowest third of the first round, we would miss out on Mathias Kiwanuka and Mario Williams, both of whom are studs, and probably go with someone like a Tamba Hali, who is a good player, but nothing to really moan about in terms of not getting.

So, unfortunately, the "we could have gotten a franchise DE" argument doesn't hold too much water for me.

[SkinsNeverDie]

As to the Campbell vs. DE debate...

Last season, at pick 25, the best possible DE available was probably Matt Roth, or maybe the DE/OLB tweener Dan Cody. Cody is obviously out because we have no need for such a player, and so we consider Roth, who has mustered a whole 10 tackles and 0 sacks thus far. He would provide little to no improvement over the guys we have in there at this point.

This season, in the lowest third of the first round, we would miss out on Mathias Kiwanuka and Mario Williams, both of whom are studs, and probably go with someone like a Tamba Hali, who is a good player, but nothing to really moan about in terms of not getting.

So, unfortunately, the "we could have gotten a franchise DE" argument doesn't hold too much water for me.

You really never know though. We could have gotten a franchise QB in Jason Campbell.

[Kilmer17]

As to the Campbell vs. DE debate...

Last season, at pick 25, the best possible DE available was probably Matt Roth, or maybe the DE/OLB tweener Dan Cody. Cody is obviously out because we have no need for such a player, and so we consider Roth, who has mustered a whole 10 tackles and 0 sacks thus far. He would provide little to no improvement over the guys we have in there at this point.

This season, in the lowest third of the first round, we would miss out on Mathias Kiwanuka and Mario Williams, both of whom are studs, and probably go with someone like a Tamba Hali, who is a good player, but nothing to really moan about in terms of not getting.

So, unfortunately, the "we could have gotten a franchise DE" argument doesn't hold too much water for me.

Not LAST year. NEXT year. Not to mention what we could have done with the 3rd and 4th we gave up as well.

[Skinsphoto]

Has anyone heard of Carson Palmer? He didn't play a down his first year. We gave up a third round pick to have an extra year with the quarterback of our future. Pretty damn smart. It is becoming very obvious to me that drafting these QB's in the first round and playing them right away, 90% of the time destroys their confidence and them as well.

The old school style of sitting them for a year or two is the best way to bring along a number draft pick QB. Destroying these QB's by playing them too early ends up costing these team atleast 3-4 years of quality play. The only three that have worked out in the past 10 years are the Mannings and Big Ben. No one else has been successful. McNabb & Vick finally prevailed. But review the long list of losers.

Couch, Akli Smith, Harrington, Carr, Ramsey, Mcnowen, heck I can't remember them all. But who's starting and playing well that was a first round pick and played right away? Only three and that goes back to when Manning was first drafted.

[The extremist]

for the deal to be true genius, Campbell has to be the real deal at QB once he gets his chance to start....we'll see how he pans out

[Art]

I'm not ready to do carwheels over the move yet. Even if Campbell turns out to be a good qb' date=' I'm still not sure he is worth ALL of the picks we gave up to get him. To justify the choice, he needs to have a few All-Pro seasons.

And I still think Denver is going to try to package their picks to get into the Matt Leinart sweepstakes. That's always been the obvious move. Granted, two picks in the 20s are going to be a lot harder to move, but they still have a lot of flexibility in the draft...whereas we have none.[/quote']

This is patently absurd.

Trades of picks by ALL teams are measured by draft value charts. Based on the chart similiar to any all teams use, this trade was in our favor if we didn't finish finish in the bottom 7 of the league or in that vicinity. From a value standpoint, without attaching ANY names to the picks, we got value if we pick below seven or so.

The better we do the MORE value we have.

And, how much is grooming a physically gifted QB for a FULL year worth in draft picks? If Campbell is a bust, it doesn't make any difference at all as to whether the trade was a good one any more than if Campbell is great helps to make the trade better. The trade was good or bad based on established value criteria at the time.

It was bad if we finished badly and got less value in return than we gave up and it was good if we finished well and got more.

[TheLongshot]

I didn't like the pick at the time, and I still don't like it to a certain extent, but I do understand it. Obviously, the front office felt strongly about this kid, and felt just as strongly that they needed to strengthen the QB position, particularly since they didn't have a true "development" guy on the roster.

Now, I didn't think they needed to give up all that for Campbell. There were certainly guys in the draft they could have picked up later. As I said at the time, I think it only makes sense if you don't think Ramsey is the guy. Otherwise, you pick up someone like LeFors, and let him learn.

So, now that it looks like that Ramsey doesn't have much of a future here, it looks better. Now, you got a guy who can learn things and doesn't have to start for a couple of years. Also, he seems to be a very Gibbsian QB: Strong armed, can manage a game which is run focused. A bonus is that he has a little bit of wiggle back there.

Jason

[timdaley73]

The better we do the MORE value we have.

My point exactly... Considering our performace thus far and the way our record will line up compare to the league, it was a damn GREAT GENIUS move... The extra year this year we get with our first round pick of 2006 (#20 - 32) is PRICELESS!! Especially since we need depth and development in the position...

[Skinsphoto]

My point exactly... Considering our performace thus far and the way our record will line up compare to the league, it was a damn GREAT GENIUS move... The extra year this year we get with our first round pick of 2006 (#20 - 32) is PRICELESS!! Especially since we need depth and development in the position...

You're exactly right. I don't understand how it isn't obvious to everyone else here. The extra year is worth 3-4 years at a minimum in the quarterback position.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is patently absurd.

Trades of picks by ALL teams are measured by draft value charts. Based on the chart similiar to any all teams use, this trade was in our favor if we didn't finish finish in the bottom 7 of the league or in that vicinity. From a value standpoint, without attaching ANY names to the picks, we got value if we pick below seven or so.

The better we do the MORE value we have.

And, how much is grooming a physically gifted QB for a FULL year worth in draft picks? If Campbell is a bust, it doesn't make any difference at all as to whether the trade was a good one any more than if Campbell is great helps to make the trade better. The trade was good or bad based on established value criteria at the time.

It was bad if we finished badly and got less value in return than we gave up and it was good if we finished well and got more.

I've seen you make this argument before, and I still don't really understand it. I understand that every pick is assessed a value and that somehow the value we gave up is less than the value we gave. I was pretty good in math at one point in my life.

But I don't see how you can do this type of thing and not factor in the actual player chosen. Surely the Broncos have those same charts and didn't decide, "Hey, let's give the Redskins a win here." They must have thought they would use the picks better than the Skins.

By that, I mean, if you move up to pick 25 and take a player who should have been selected at pick 41, shouldn't that be thrown into the calculation. Isn't the actual value of the pick 41 and not 25? Again, if you trade a sixth round for the number two pick overall, but that pick turns out to be Ryan Leaf and the sixth round pick turns out to be Tom Brady, you won on the actuarial tables but lost in real life.

So, the picks themselves have values attached to them, but what is done with them should be factored. I mean, the pick that Denver got in the Bailey/Porits deal turned into Tatum Bell. Shouldn't that pick have much higher value in your calculations based on the player selected with it?

This formula seems to be based on the fact that every team is going to draft a player with a value equal to the pick at hand.

My problem with both Denver trades is that in the end, we have Portis, Campbell, and a cap problem that led to the loss of Pierce while the Broncos ended up with Bailey, Bell, Karl Paymah (who is playing specials for them), plus a 1st and a 4th this year that can be used or packaged into something bigger.

The team just seems totally out of balance right now with the amount of money we have at qb, the needs we have on both lines, the overall lack of youth and picks and a coach who may not be around to see his #1 pick qb start.

And, while I'm thrilled to have Gibbs back as coach, I was never thrilled with having him making personell decisions. He wasn't good at that his first time around. I still think Brunell was severely overpaid despite the tremendous year he is having. It feels like we've mortaged the future to make a run at the Wild Card, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You're exactly right. I don't understand how it isn't obvious to everyone else here. The extra year is worth 3-4 years at a minimum in the quarterback position.

Unless he just stinks, in which it means nothing.

[Jumbo]

that was gibbs plan all along.

if brunell can stay healthy and continue to manage the offense/ produce, he will have been right.

i, along w/ countless others, owe joe an apology on that one. i never said it, but i thought he had lost his screws.

Hats off to you bud. :thumbsup: While some of us (often tagged "homers" ) tend to look for and find the football sense behind JG's moves (or Buges, Blache, GW, etc.) because we believe they're likely to be solid based on experience even if we don't "get it" at first, others (not saying you) just go right for the "oh, no! how stupid again" reaction.

It has nothing to do with the fact that they can't, or don't, make mistakes. It's more a case of giving a little time and patience (sometimes even more than one season <gasp>!) before assuming they were amazingly mistaken.

We still don't know if Campbell will turn out, but I agreed with the timing and and the reasoning behind the decision based on JG's five-year schedule and relevant factors as they stood in the big picture. And I did, and do, defend that perspective. While there are likely to be blunders, there will be many more Gibbs' era2 decisions that work well for the team than not.

[Section Eight]

Keep in mind that we will get a return on the replacement of Ramsey as the future of the franchise; wherein, we will most likely trade him in the off-season. We can hope to get a first round pick but may end up with a second or third round for him.

Therefore, the way I look at it is -- we traded this year's number 1 pick, last year's number 3 pick, this year's number 4 pick and Patrick Ramsey for Jason Campbell (with one year of experience learning the offense) and a potential high draft pick.

Furthermore, this year's potential FA selection of Defensive Ends is astoundingly deep: John Abraham, Dwight Freeney, Darren Howard, Anthony Weaver, Marcellus Wiley, Kimo Von Oelhoffen, Kyle Vanden Bosch, N.D. Kalu, etc. With the copious amounts of quality DE's potentially available, there is no reason to insist upon getting a DE via the draft. However, consider the QB's that are potential FA's we could acquire to replace Brunell in the future: Drew Brees, Jon Kitna, and Josh McCown. As for the QB's coming out of the draft (because Vince Young, Brady Quinn, and Marcus Vick are all probably going back to college next year) Matt Leinart will go to high for our pick and that leaves us with the likes of Charlie Whitehurst, Reggie McNeal, Brodie Croyle, and D.J. Shockely. I would take Campbell over any of them.

In the end, I believe Joe made a pretty decent selection.

[TheLongshot]

But I don't see how you can do this type of thing and not factor in the actual player chosen. Surely the Broncos have those same charts and didn't decide' date=' "Hey, let's give the Redskins a win here." They must have thought they would use the picks better than the Skins.

By that, I mean, if you move up to pick 25 and take a player who should have been selected at pick 41, shouldn't that be thrown into the calculation. Isn't the actual value of the pick 41 and not 25? Again, if you trade a sixth round for the number two pick overall, but that pick turns out to be Ryan Leaf and the sixth round pick turns out to be Tom Brady, you won on the actuarial tables but lost in real life.[/quote']

Question: how do you know where a player "should have" been picked? A player get's picked where they get picked. Just because Brady is a great starting QB doesn't change the fact that he was a 6th round pick.

You can't value players made with a pick, because you don't know what players will be at a future draft pick, especially for future drafts. There is a lot of talk about the potential we give up with giving up the first next year, but we really don't know if there will be a player that the team will want more than Campbell this year. They made a trade which they felt that they got good value.

Course, there is the argument that you don't know where you are going to be finishing, which could drastically change the value of a 1st round pick. Course, this thread is all about that the worst case senario is probably not going to come to pass.

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Question: how do you know where a player "should have" been picked? A player get's picked where they get picked. Just because Brady is a great starting QB doesn't change the fact that he was a 6th round pick.

You can't value players made with a pick, because you don't know what players will be at a future draft pick, especially for future drafts. There is a lot of talk about the potential we give up with giving up the first next year, but we really don't know if there will be a player that the team will want more than Campbell this year. They made a trade which they felt that they got good value.

Course, there is the argument that you don't know where you are going to be finishing, which could drastically change the value of a 1st round pick. Course, this thread is all about that the worst case senario is probably not going to come to pass.

Jason

Well, that is the great unknown. And that is why teams make trades in the first place. If it just went by value tables, no team would ever make a trade, because someone would always win. And both teams would know the winner.

The Broncos took two calculated risks with the Campbell trade. One they guessed that the Redskins would stink this year and that pick will have a high value. Thankfully, that does not seem likely at this point.

The other risk is that they will use the picks received in a better way than the Redskins and the Redskins will use the pick they received in a way worse than the Broncos. That may still be the case.

My concern from the beginning is that I think the salary cap era, you need a lot of draft picks and you need to use them well. The Skins approach over the last decade has been to get a starter in the first round and then nothing else. And even teams that draft well like Philly, New England and Pittsburgh don't hit on every pick. They just happen to have a lot of picks. And they don't run into the same salary cap problems because their starters are cheaper.

Philly has finally overplayed their hand with this approach and are probably missing the playoffs due - in part - to their cheapness. But it produced a darn fine half a decade run. And there is no reason they can't rebound quickly. The Skins have little flexibility in either the cap or in the draft next year.

[e16bball]

You really never know though. We could have gotten a franchise QB in Jason Campbell.

I'm agreeing with your point, man. I'm saying it's better to have taken a shot on the guy Gibbs decided could be a franchise QB than to have used the pick on some DE that really doesn't exist.

Not LAST year. NEXT year. Not to mention what we could have done with the 3rd and 4th we gave up as well.

I think you must have missed the last part of my post, my friend. It went a little something like this:

This season, in the lowest third of the first round, we would miss out on Mathias Kiwanuka and Mario Williams, both of whom are studs, and probably go with someone like a Tamba Hali, who is a good player, but nothing to really moan about in terms of not getting.

That is the "next year" you are talking about. Kiwanuka and Mario Williams are the best DEs coming out in the next draft (Williams is a junior, but is likely to declare). Neither of those players will get out of the top 15, and willl probably be top 10 picks. Thus, the trade for Campbell didn't cost us either of those players unless Gibbs was planning for another losing season, which he very accurately was not. It's possible we would have had a chance to take Tamba Hali with that pick, but he's really not a can't-miss surefire superstar by any means.

While most of us may not know everything about future drafts, I think it's safe to assume the front office decided we wouldn't have a chance at either of those studs (or any we would really HATE to lose out on) this year and it was okay to make the deal for the guy they felt is a franchise QB. They are certainly aware of the players who will be available in upcoming years.

I DO, on the other hand, agree that we are too loose with our tendency to throw high picks into trades. I think a 2nd was excessive to throw in for the Bailey trade, and I think last year's 3rd AND this year's 4th was unneccessary for the Campbell trade. I understand trade value charts (so please no one lecture me on them) but the value of a future 4th is so miniscule that it could not have swung the trade one way or another. Sadly, other front offices know that ours is very willing to sweeten the pot to get things done once we've made up our mind about what direction we want to go.

[Art]

Lombardi,

That you don't really understand a thing is fine. That the thing exists remains the measure for everyone, whether you grasp the meaning or not. The names and careers of those selected have no bearing whatsoever on the trade itself. The careers of the players drafted will ultimately define whether the pick, itself, was good or bad, but doesn't negate the established method for determining value in a trade of draft picks.

Denver did calculate the Redskins would be a team that struggled and they'd end up getting greater value in return than they gave up. If they lose that gamble, the trade is in our favor. If they win it, it's in theirs. It's been that way since Day 1.

The trade for Campbell, though, doesn't become great if Campbell is a Hall of Famer or worse if he becomes Heath Shuler because we didn't TRADE for Campbell. We traded picks for picks based on a defined method of value every team uses. The pick of Campbell may become better or worse based on how he does though.

The Redskins have no discernable cap issues whatsoever. There are no spots on the offensive line you can point to at this moment and suggest any player would be an easy snap in. A healthy defensive line can be upgraded by a specific type of player, but little more than a pass rusher would be easily seen as an improvement.

But, these are conversations for other conversations.

[cscmtp]

how about this possible comparison...

Bengals draft rookie QB Palmer the same year that QB Kitna goes from goat to come back player of the year. The following year, Palmer becomes the starter, and is now a future all pro.

Brunell SHOULD be this year's comeback player of the year. Next year, Campbell becomes a young super star.