Does everyone realize we actually DO have a first round pick next year??

[Destino]

The Skins got Campbell. They gave up a 3rd rounder this year and a first and fourth rounder next year. The 3rd round pick turned out to be CB Karl Paymah. Right now, the first rounder would be the 14th pick in the draft.

So your way of looking at things -- that the Skins have already drafted for 2006 -- says that the Skins way overpaid for Campbell. They used #14 pick on him (plus two others). So you're saying that 2006 is already a pretty lousy draft.

I have another way of looking at things: that was last year. It's behind us. Nothing we can do about it. Second-guessing is fun, but the Skins certainly will need a QB next year so they're lucky Campbell has a year of seasoning. Ramsey will be gone, and Brunell might have a year or two left if he can stay healthy. That's a pretty shaky lineup. Campbell better have learned something on the bench.

BINGO. People want to agree with this BS but we gave up A LOT more then just one for one.

[luckydevil]

Merriman could have been the pick( instead of Carlos). Imagine having a nice young potential superstar on your dline

Sigh

[Bonez3]

The thing that I dont like is that we've really bet the farm on Jason Campbell. If hes a bust we're set back a long way and Joe gibbs 2nd tenure will probably be considered a flop.

Hey man- that's the game. Gibbs is gonna be right or wrong here.

I like our chances. All I'm gonna say.

[TheLongshot]

Merriman could have been the pick( instead of Carlos). Imagine having a nice young potential superstar on your dline

Sigh

Except that he's a LB... :doh:

Jason

[luckydevil]

Except that he's a LB...

he can play de

[seanyt]

Half full, half empty. I guess the way I look at it is our first pick comes somewhere after the 32nd pick, but face it we have no pick this coming up draft in the 1st round.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Interesting look Kleese

And yeah I will agree

At first I was in the "what the hell" category with Campbell, but having seen him play LIVE in the Sugar Bowl last year, and seeing whats happened with Ramsey I like the pick and the fact we are accelerating the development of a QB of the future by picking him

Also Brunell at best will get through next year, and then it will be JC's turn

I would love though to get a couple of 2nd and 3rd rounders this year. I don't think there is a dominant DE, or DT in this draft, but some solid ones can be found in the 2nd and 3rd rounds

[listopencil]

Just use this. By the way, we absolutely screeeeeeewed you guys on the Champ+pick/Portis trade.

[tr1]

Just use this. By the way, we absolutely screeeeeeewed you guys on the Champ+pick/Portis trade.

How do you figure that Denver got the better of the deal?

Chump has been injured most of this year...and was toast most of last year. Thank God you guys have some pass rush this year.

Portis has played and played well. He's our number one back without any question.

Denver donkeys... :doh:

[TheGreek1973]

Where we messed up BIG time is to pass on Canty with our 4th round. BIG BIG BIG mistake. To me it was like having a lotto ticket with the winning numbers and throwing it away. In fact I will say if we have gotten Canty with our 4th round to me would have been just as good as never giving up the 3rd to Denver because you bet you butt I would have taking Canty with our 3rd round. I was going nuts when I heard the name Manuel White. WTF?

And here comes Dallas and takes him. Just you watch the next few years how much this miscue by Gibbs is going to cost us.

[fansince62]

uh huh. think our pick this year would have been higher than 22/23? there is a difference.

the correct comparison is value on the field. and so far...we have gottewn nothing from our fiorst round picks this past draft and we will have no first rnd picks next draft.

performance is the ONLY thing that counts. The Broncos are getting it - we aren't. quit living in a dreamworld.

the story changes if JC hits the field - so far he hasn't. how much you wanna bet the Skins scramble during the off-season to improve their draft position through some trades?

[KevinthePRF]

kleese, does this mean we really only had one pick in the first round of the 2000 draft instead of 3?

[kleese]

I never said it was a even swap. All I said that it was a virtually even swap in terms of first rounders.

Yes, let's say we had a first rounder this year and used it to draft a DE. That would help for sure, but we'd still be stuck with Brunell/Ramsey and no young QB to challenge.

We rolled the dice with Campbell-- no doubt about it. If he isn't any good, then it will go down as a miserable trade. But what I like is the PHILOSOPHY behind the trade. The REALLY scary teams in the league are mostly the ones that used draft picks on young QB's (Colts, Bengals, Eagles, Jags, Steelers, etc...) You could always wait for the great exception (Brady), but the fact remains that the NFL is still geared towards having a good/great QB. Gibbs knew Brunell was too old and Ramsey wasn't good enough. He saw Campbell, liked what he saw and was probably somewhat concerned about waiting to fill that gap until next year.

IMO, we traded a third and fourth for Campbell, not a first.

And yes, IMO, the Portis trade was a mistake. Not because of Champ-- I was in favor of dealing him. But I would have rather just traded Champ for a first, gone with Betts at RB and used the pick to improve elsewhere. Portis is a good player, but he wasn't (and isn't) necessary.

But I'll defend the Campbell pick with all my breath.

[G-Prime]

Did this really need it's own thread?

[Drex]

Coming off of a 6-10 season, did we really possess the luxury of allowing our first round pick next year to sit on the bench this year? You would think that a 6-10 team would focus its energy on improving the team for the upcoming season. Also, consider that prior to Campbell's arrival, we had already invested a first round pick(Ramsey) and a reasonably big contract/draft pick in order to attain the services of Mark Brunell.

Even if you do throw Campbell into the fire, would you really like to see how he would fare under the protection of this offensive line? Without a strong offensive line and capable wide receivers outside of Santana Moss, Campbell would probably struggle to say the least.

[trez]

I dunno, it would be nice to be able to draft that Kiwanuka guy.

[bobzmuda]

Coming off of a 6-10 season, did we really possess the luxury of allowing our first round pick next year to sit on the bench this year? You would think that a 6-10 team would focus its energy on improving the team for the upcoming season. Also, consider that prior to Campbell's arrival, we had already invested a first round pick(Ramsey) and a reasonably big contract/draft pick in order to attain the services of Mark Brunell.

Even if you do throw Campbell into the fire, would you really like to see how he would fare under the protection of this offensive line? Without a strong offensive line and capable wide receivers outside of Santana Moss, Campbell would probably struggle to say the least.

Gibbs has said repeatedly that his plan was to leave the Redskins in good shape for the long-term - and no position is important for long-term NFL success than a QB.

Jason Campbell had more than a solid season - he was arguably the best QB in the land last season. Moreover, he was about as perfect a fit for Gibbs' system and Gibbs' personality preference as one player could be.

Aside from being the most critical to a team's success, QB is also the most difficult position to fill. You can't get a great young QB on the FA market unless you pay a premium. Other positions like situational pass-rushing DE and WR can be filled easily, cheaply, and effectively in the draft and FA.

The good thing about the Redskins DE need is that they don't need to draft an all-around DE that can both stop the run and the pass. They have the DEs that can stop the run already. Instead, the Redskins need situational pass rushers - these guys can be had in the 2nd round and in the FA market. Young franchise QBs can't.

[NJSkins]

Ernie Accorsi said that the Giants would not have been able to sign Pierce if not for the Manning trade. Why because he would not have had enough money because of money tied up into the rookie pool. So he looks as the Manning trade including Pierce. So if we can sign a DE with the money that would have been tied up to the rookie pool that is an added bonus.

[TheLongshot]

Coming off of a 6-10 season, did we really possess the luxury of allowing our first round pick next year to sit on the bench this year? You would think that a 6-10 team would focus its energy on improving the team for the upcoming season. Also, consider that prior to Campbell's arrival, we had already invested a first round pick(Ramsey) and a reasonably big contract/draft pick in order to attain the services of Mark Brunell.

Even if you do throw Campbell into the fire, would you really like to see how he would fare under the protection of this offensive line? Without a strong offensive line and capable wide receivers outside of Santana Moss, Campbell would probably struggle to say the least.

The draft isn't just for improving yourself in the upcomming season. In fact, not many rookies contribute much in their rookie season. People go on about Chris Canty, who may be a fine player, but he only has 1.5 sacks this year. People wanted a WR, but typically WRs don't contribute much as rookies.

When building a team, you probably aren't going to shore up every weakness that you have, and often, you need to make a choice. When we didn't resign Smoot and Pierce, shoring up that part of the defense became important. Special teams also was an issue for us (and is even more of an issue for a 6-10 team.), and a lot of the pics were with that in mind.

As for Campbell, I can understand the view that "well, we got a bunch of QBs already, why do you need him?" Well, one could say that Ramsey didn't exactly encourage confidence in the coaching staff. What if he wasn't the guy? What happens if he doesn't light it up? Then there is Brunell, who didn't exactly light it up last year. Gibbs still liked him, but there was no guarantee that he'd get better, and he's aging.

So, getting a young QB was probably a high priority, even if he has to sit for a bit. They may have settled for a guy further down the draft, but when they saw Campbell, they knew that he was exactly everything they wanted in a QB. When you find a guy like that, you gotta go after him.

The nice thing about that is, Ramsey actually has trade value in the offseason. With a year left on his contract, and not really a big need to actually trade him, they might be able to get decent value for him, even if it ends up being a 3rd or 4th round pick.

It probably also makes sense in a contract sense, which people here don't seem to take into account. While not having a first round pick may be a negative, the positive is that we don't have to pay a first round pick this year.

Yes, it is a risk. Guess what? Most draft pics are a risk. That's why teams give up picks to get the guy that they want, to help mitigate that risk, rather than wait and see what it available.

Jason

[wskin44]

I agree with you Kleese. We needed another QB option for the future and we took him with our 2006 first round pick.

[TheLongshot]

Ernie Accorsi said that the Giants would not have been able to sign Pierce if not for the Manning trade. Why because he would not have had enough money because of money tied up into the rookie pool. So he looks as the Manning trade including Pierce. So if we can sign a DE with the money that would have been tied up to the rookie pool that is an added bonus.

Wow, I just made that point. Thanks for mentioning it.

We need a veteran who is a known quanity at DE, not a rookie.

Jason

[Tulane Skins Fan]

this thread is the ultimate in skins optomist. unreal the outlook you have here... i guess if it works for you, keep it up. that being said, we dont have a first rounder in the 2006 NFL draft

[jerrarde]

I hate to sound like an apologist, but it really irks me when people don't consider things before making statements. Right now, I hear a lot of people lamenting the fact that we don't have a first rounder next year-- and that it's another sign of FO ineptitude.

But we DO have a first rounder next year.

It's just that we already know who it is:

Jason Campbell

We chose to take TWO first rounders in this past draft, rather than spread them out into two drafts-- I have NO problem with that.

I look at Jason Campbell as if he isn't even on the team right now. I approach it as if Ramsey and Brunell are our only QB's. Then, we add Campbell to the mix with next year's first round pick.

As far as I'm concerned, our 2006 draft looks like this:

First round: Jason Campbell

Second Round: ?????

Etc....

Gibbs KNEW Campbell wasn't going to make an impact in 2005. He clearly had no confidence in Ramsey and wanted to make sure that we had a QB to groom for the future. He probably looked ahead to the QB class of 2006 and saw a pretty dry well after Leinert. Obviously, the team liked Campbell and felt he was worthy of a first round pick. Time will tell on that.

As important as D line is and as badly as I want a pass rusher, NOTHING is more important than QB. And I'm glad the Redskins have recognized that. We've invested first rounders into two recent QB;'s (Shuler and Ramsey) that haven't worked out-- but you can't just brush it aside and ignore it because you failed with it in the past.

People act as if we just GAVE that first rounder away for nothing. We did get a player out of the deal-- whether he turns out to be any good is still up in the air, but we did get something. And he's actually a pretty integral part of the future now.

So please stop telling me that we threw away a first round pick because our 2006 selection is already on the sideline.

You got a point there buddy.

[Destino]

You got a point there buddy.

No he doesn't. We gave up more then a first round pick for Campbell. It was not a 1 for 1 trade. Thus the thought that "oh well it's the same thing" is incorrect.

[TheLongshot]

No he doesn't. We gave up more then a first round pick for Campbell. It was not a 1 for 1 trade. Thus the thought that "oh well it's the same thing" is incorrect.

And he already said that that wasn't what he said.

Jason