I found this to be an interesting rumor

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Brunell and Portis have paid dividends for us with both getting better and better. We improved at corner and got an excellent runner. That's good stuff.

You are completely missing my point. Gibbs has a good eye for talent; I don't dispute that. Gibbs is bad at getting that talent in the door in a way that makes sense.

Gibbs knew that Brunell had something left. That's tremendous considering no one else in the league did. But Gibbs also gave up a draft pick for him and then signed him to a ridiculous contract. A real GM would have said, ok, I'll get you Brunell and not have lost the draft pick or signed him to that ridiculous deal.

I know that there are people who want to pretend it's the 1980s and act like production does not have to match the contract. But it does in the cap era. Brunell is comeback player of the year. He is also not worth the price the Skins paid for him.

Same with Portis. Portis is a top ten back. He is getting top two back money and we lost a pick.

Moss is a great receiver. But we had to take a massive cap hit to get him and probably lost Smoot and Pierce as a result.

So...we have the triplets of Brunell, Portis, and Moss. And they are a very good tandem. But they aren't Manning, James, and Harrison though their contracts are likely comparable and we lost 4 potential starters to acquire them.

As someone mentioned, the last two skins off-seasons are the off-seasons that 10-6 teams make, to try to find that one player to put you over the hump.

Bad teams (which is what we were) get good by stockpiling young players and picks. We've done neither.

[Skins11]

Moss is a great receiver. But we had to take a massive cap hit to get him and probably lost Smoot and Pierce as a result.

Please... it is ridiculous to say Gibbs screwed up on this. Coles was signed to that ridiculous contract before Gibbs. What was Gibbs supposed to do, keep a player who didn't want to be here who clearly was not the same player as before? Gibbs got three things done with that trade - clear Coles' gigantic contract off the books for the future, get rid of a malcontent, and get a great player in Moss... all at once. We took the cap hit for it and now we are free of that burden.

Also, I don't think we lost Smoot and Pierce because of this move. I believe we could have signed either one after trade without too much difficulty under the cap.

I suppose you can criticize some of the other moves/contracts based on how much we had to give up, but criticizing THIS one is just flat out asinine.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Our defensive line remains among the league's best at stopping the run and was the league's best last year in that category. With Griffin healthy it'll be that this year. There's more to playing defensive line than rushing the QB. I wish people knew that.

This is demonstrably false, Art. We are 17th in the league in rush defense. And we are 19th in yards per attempt allowed. We are in the bottom nine in rushing touchdowns allowed.

If there are 32 teams, we actually remain among the league's worst rushing defenses.

Believe it or not, the strength of this team - at least statistically - is pass defense. But we are living on the edge there.

[Destino]

Our defensive line remains among the league's best at stopping the run and was the league's best last year in that category. With Griffin healthy it'll be that this year. There's more to playing defensive line than rushing the QB. I wish people knew that.

Brunell and Portis have paid dividends for us with both getting better and better. We improved at corner and got an excellent runner. That's good stuff.

Two things, the team is not among the leagues best at stopping the run. We are last in the NFC East and 17th overall. Also I know that there is more then rushing the QB, but it is undeniable that pressuring the passer is one of the responsibilities of the defensive line. Having a defensive line that can do one thing but not the other is like having a QB that can throw 20 yard passes but nothing deep. Used correctly you could still produce but you're limited and other teams have easier times dealing with you.

Also I don't see how we improved at corner. Springs/Smoot/Harris trio looked a ton better then Springs/Harris/Rogers have this season.

[Dirk Diggler]

You are completely missing my point. Gibbs has a good eye for talent; I don't dispute that. Gibbs is bad at getting that talent in the door in a way that makes sense.

Gibbs knew that Brunell had something left. That's tremendous considering no one else in the league did. But Gibbs also gave up a draft pick for him and then signed him to a ridiculous contract. A real GM would have said' date=' ok, I'll get you Brunell and not have lost the draft pick or signed him to that ridiculous deal.

I know that there are people who want to pretend it's the 1980s and act like production does not have to match the contract. But it does in the cap era. Brunell is comeback player of the year. He is also not worth the price the Skins paid for him.

Same with Portis. Portis is a top ten back. He is getting top two back money and we lost a pick.

Moss is a great receiver. But we had to take a massive cap hit to get him and probably lost Smoot and Pierce as a result.

So...we have the triplets of Brunell, Portis, and Moss. And they are a very good tandem. But they aren't Manning, James, and Harrison though their contracts are likely comparable and we lost 4 potential starters to acquire them.

As someone mentioned, the last two skins off-seasons are the off-seasons that 10-6 teams make, to try to find that one player to put you over the hump.

Bad teams (which is what we were) get good by stockpiling young players and picks. We've done neither.[/quote']

I think you are way off on some of this.

The Colts triplets contracts are nowhere near that of ours. Manning got a bonus in the 35+mill range and Brunell's was 8. Moss's was 10 or 11 and Harrison's was 15 or so. Portis got a monster deal but James got the franchise tender of 1 year 9-10 mill which is a huge cap number for 2005, perhaps more than any other back along with Alexander who also signed a tender.

BTW, there was no way to get Brunell without a pick. There were 3 or 4 other teams in talks with the Jags. Nor is Brunell's salary out of whack with his production. He's played as well as any QB outside of Brady, Manning, and Palmer. His salary is probably in the 18-20 range among starting QBs and he's played far better than that.

I'm not sure how you can complain about the Moss addition in any way. Gibbs did what he had to do to improve the receiver position and he succeeded. There were no WRs in FA or the draft who could have made anywhere near the impact SM did. While the cap hit was big, there is no way it cost us both Smoot and Pierce. The team still made very competitive offers to both players so it's not the front office's fault they were looking to go to the highest bidder.

[0mega]

Isnt joe gibbs our head coach/gm or somthing? Joes drafted well if u asked me...

Note...

Sean Taylor

Chris Cooley

Carlos Rogers

our future qb that wont bust for once...Jason Campbell

Santana Moss

Casey Rabach

3 Years from now the smartest moves in joe gibbs 2nd era...keeping taylor jacobs...his story reminds me of hines ward, special teams player that didnt get a chance for 3 or 4 years then got a chance and dominated.

P.S Joe gibbs is doing fine and if your wondering when taylor jacobs chance will be it will be againts oakland.

Not sure why you threw Santana and Rabach in with the draft picks.....

but I'll give you Taylor and Cooley. So far, they are the only picks that have panned out. Others MAY pan out (including Rogers and Campbell), but you can't lock them down as success stories yet (Campbell hasn't taken a single snap if I'm not mistaken).

[TheLongshot]

Gibbs knew that Brunell had something left. That's tremendous considering no one else in the league did. But Gibbs also gave up a draft pick for him and then signed him to a ridiculous contract. A real GM would have said' date=' ok, I'll get you Brunell and not have lost the draft pick or signed him to that ridiculous deal.[/quote']

Problem is, if you do that, you risk not getting him. Would you have rather had Kurt Warner? Jeff Garcia? When you identify players that you feel you need, sometimes overpaying them is nessicary. And, considering how Brunell is playing right now, he certainly isn't getting overpaid.

So...we have the triplets of Brunell, Portis, and Moss. And they are a very good tandem. But they aren't Manning, James, and Harrison though their contracts are likely comparable and we lost 4 potential starters to acquire them.

Actually, we gave up three picks, indirectly, to get these players (if you count the 1st rounder we gave up for Coles, then trading for Moss straight up. I think when you mention 4, you are actually talking about the two picks we gave up for Campbell, so you'd have to add him to the list.

In any case, tho, would those potential starters would have been Manning, James or Harrison? Not likely. If you include Campbell, we are looking at a 1st (given up before Gibbs got here), a 2nd, two 3rds, and a 4th. Potentially solid players, but no guarantee of greatness. Meanwhile, Brunell, Portis, and Moss are known quantities who have performed. They are all having damn good seasons this year. You don't think that's worth something?

As someone mentioned, the last two skins off-seasons are the off-seasons that 10-6 teams make, to try to find that one player to put you over the hump.

Ah, but last year, we really weren't that far away from being a 10-6 team. Just any sort of offense would have given us at least that. I'd also argue that we have collected a bunch of young guys. It was part of the reason why we were successful on defense early on.

Jason

[0mega]

That's if you think Harris is a serious downgrade. I don't think so. Except for the last game, he's been pretty good. And they did upgrade with Rogers.

Surely you jest.

Harris has been THE weak-link in the defense for the past three weeks atleast. He looked sharp for the first several games, then fell off big time.

[TheLongshot]

This is demonstrably false' date=' Art. We are 17th in the league in rush defense. And we are 19th in yards per attempt allowed. We are in the bottom nine in rushing touchdowns allowed. [/quote']

I think it is somewhat misleading from the big plays, especially the Giants game, which was an abberation. In general, we are pretty good at stopping the opposing running back. We certainly did the job against Westbrook and Cadalac.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

Harris has been THE weak-link in the defense for the past three weeks atleast. He looked sharp for the first several games, then fell off big time.

Considering that EVERYONE looked bad in the Giants game, I don't think you can exclusivly single him out, particularly since there were a lot of arguments that Harris looked out of position because Holdman didn't do his job.

Against the Eagles, he admittedly had a bad tackling day. That being said, he was still great in coverage.

I really think that the reason why he looked bad against Tampa was because Williams was asking him to do something he wasn't capable of doing. I put a lot more blame on Williams than I do Harris. (Oh, and all three corners got beat in that game, so it wasn't just Harris.)

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think it is somewhat misleading from the big plays, especially the Giants game, which was an abberation. In general, we are pretty good at stopping the opposing running back. We certainly did the job against Westbrook and Cadalac.

Jason

That argument is always the last refuge of a scoundrel. If you take away the big plays made by Santana Moss, our passing game sucks.

You can't take away the big plays, because that's what our defense does now. It gives up big plays.

[Drex]

That argument is always the last refuge of a scoundrel. If you take away the big plays made by Santana Moss' date=' our passing game sucks.

You can't take away the big plays, because that's what our defense does now. It gives up big plays.[/quote']

In addition to Barber;Tatum Bell, Shaun Alexander and Frank Gore will attest to that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In addition to Barber;Tatum Bell, Shaun Alexander and Frank Gore will attest to that.

I know. But there are always people who will say that if you take away his two long runs, the defense shut down Tatum Bell.

Which is like saying, if you take away the bullet holes, John Wilkes Booth did very little damage to Abraham Lincoln.

[Destino]

I think it is somewhat misleading from the big plays, especially the Giants game, which was an abberation. In general, we are pretty good at stopping the opposing running back. We certainly did the job against Westbrook and Cadalac.

Jason

Big plays are not misleading, they are the point. I've rarely seen a game where a runner actually seemed to run for 4.5 yards on each attempt, usually that just means solid running and a few big plays. So claiming that big plays are misleading is incorrect, that is exactly what the stat is telling you.

Also the skins run defense that averaged in the 80's per game last year, was averaging over 100 yards per game prior to the complete collapse during the Giants game.

[0mega]

Considering that EVERYONE looked bad in the Giants game, I don't think you can exclusivly single him out, particularly since there were a lot of arguments that Harris looked out of position because Holdman didn't do his job.

Fair enough -- we'll throw that game away for arguements sake.

Against the Eagles, he admittedly had a bad tackling day. That being said, he was still great in coverage.

"Bad" is a gross understatement .

I really think that the reason why he looked bad against Tampa was because Williams was asking him to do something he wasn't capable of doing. I put a lot more blame on Williams than I do Harris. (Oh, and all three corners got beat in that game, so it wasn't just Harris.)

What would that be? Cover opposing receivers? *gasp*

From what I saw, Harris was the only getting beat repeatedly. If it's one play - ok, it happens. Two plays - hmmmmmm, cause for concern. Three plays - not an aberration. Four plays - a patterns developing. Now repeat this over several games and you got a problem.

[Destino]

Considering that EVERYONE looked bad in the Giants game, I don't think you can exclusivly single him out, particularly since there were a lot of arguments that Harris looked out of position because Holdman didn't do his job.

Against the Eagles, he admittedly had a bad tackling day. That being said, he was still great in coverage.

I really think that the reason why he looked bad against Tampa was because Williams was asking him to do something he wasn't capable of doing. I put a lot more blame on Williams than I do Harris. (Oh, and all three corners got beat in that game, so it wasn't just Harris.)

Jason

3 horrible weeks in a row is a trend.

[0mega]

I know. But there are always people who will say that if you take away his two long runs' date=' the defense shut down Tatum Bell.

Which is like saying, if you take away the bullet holes, John Wilkes Booth did very little damage to Abraham Lincoln.[/quote']

:laugh: :applause:

[TheLongshot]

3 horrible weeks in a row is a trend.

But, for different reasons, and as I said, the Giants game doesn't really count.

Jason

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But, for different reasons, and as I said, the Giants game doesn't really count.

Jason

The Giants game doesn't count. And the big plays don't count.

Hell, we're the '85 Bears on defense if you do that.

[GSF]

You are completely missing my point. Gibbs has a good eye for talent; I don't dispute that. Gibbs is bad at getting that talent in the door in a way that makes sense.

Gibbs knew that Brunell had something left. That's tremendous considering no one else in the league did. But Gibbs also gave up a draft pick for him and then signed him to a ridiculous contract. A real GM would have said' date=' ok, I'll get you Brunell and not have lost the draft pick or signed him to that ridiculous deal.

I know that there are people who want to pretend it's the 1980s and act like production does not have to match the contract. But it does in the cap era. Brunell is comeback player of the year. He is also not worth the price the Skins paid for him.

Same with Portis. Portis is a top ten back. He is getting top two back money and we lost a pick.

Moss is a great receiver. But we had to take a massive cap hit to get him and probably lost Smoot and Pierce as a result.

So...we have the triplets of Brunell, Portis, and Moss. And they are a very good tandem. But they aren't Manning, James, and Harrison though their contracts are likely comparable and we lost 4 potential starters to acquire them.

As someone mentioned, the last two skins off-seasons are the off-seasons that 10-6 teams make, to try to find that one player to put you over the hump.

Bad teams (which is what we were) get good by stockpiling young players and picks. We've done neither.[/quote']

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Giving up the 3rd rounder for Brunell was the only was to make sure we got him, and probably saved us money on his contract, which by the way is not overpriced for the performance he's putting in this year.

Portis is much more than a top ten back. The only more complete back in the league is LT when you consider running hard, blocking, and catching balls out of the backfield. Stop thinking in terms of fantasy football.

Moss was a steal for a busted, disgruntles Coles. Please enlighten us on how a real GM could have better handled the situation.

Pierce and Smoot are gone because they wanted bigger contracts than Springs and Washington. Smoot has not even come close to earning the big contract in Minnesota, and Marshall has played at a very similar level to Pierce for a lot less money.

You guys are so determined to prove that Gibbs can't manage this team that you refuse to see how quickly the roster has improved. And like I told Destino, your points are irrelevant b/c as long as Gibbs is the President of the team, he's going to be calling the shots. To suggest to demote Gibbs to just being the coach so that Wolfe or anyone else come in and GM is a joke. I'll ask once again, how many rings does Wolfe have?

[GSF]

3 horrible weeks in a row is a trend.

3 weeks without or best player on defense.

New England's defense went from 1 of the best to 1 of the worst in the league this year b/c of injuries. Should they bring in a new GM too?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'll ask once again, how many rings does Wolfe have?

One more as GM than Gibbs does.

Why is everyone confusing the coach/GM issue? I love Gibbs as coach. He scares me making personnel decisions.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 weeks without or best player on defense.

New England's defense went from 1 of the best to 1 of the worst in the league this year b/c of injuries. Should they bring in a new GM too?

Walt Harris forgot how to tackle because CG is out?

[GSF]

Walt Harris forgot how to tackle because CG is out?

You can't see how Griff being out puts more pressure on Harris and the rest of the defense?

[lawboy_2000]

If I remember correctly. Wolf was going to take the job, but wanted ownership as part of the deal, and DS wasn't interested in giving any control. Somewhere in the range of 5% of the team is what he wanted.