Larry Gude Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 The Duckett trade was simply a bad, desperate move, that's it. 1. Atlanta didn't want him, a common theme with the people we seem to pick up. 2. We had Betts, who we are now hearing that Saunders has loved all along, who could have, along with Rock and Nemo gotten the team trough the first 2-4 games and perhaps handled the season if Portis turned out to be gone long term. 3. Several people have already mentioned the insanity of how we value draft picks. That's it, a bad move, all the way around. Having said that, raise you hand if you use all of your expense account on a regular basis. Raise you hand if you spend a grand now knowing that's about how much you'll get back on your taxes. Point being this is an undisciplined team that buys whatever it wants because A, it can and B, they're constantly unhappy with who they have. Signing Ladell now is nothing short of the good luck of Portis being hurt. If he, CP had a good, full season, anyone expect Betts would have been enticed to stay when we could have paid millions more for Super Guy X? The grass is always greener in someone elses locker room, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAILBOMB9 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 That's funny, I thought the fact that we suck 99% of the time proved the incompetence of our FO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF4L Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 "At the time we needed a RB cause Portis's status was uncertain, the Skins thought there would be some problems there if CPs injury didnt get better. Gibbs stated this numerous times. So at the time it was a great move, but it didnt turn out that way, get over it." baloney. it was a panic move and it also suggests that after 3 seasons the team STILL didn't know what it had in Betts. the lack of use of Duckett also suggests the team didn't do its homework. we have BAFOONS running this team from a FO perspective. 2 playoff appearnces in 14 years. WE ARE THE BUNGLES OF OLD. A TOTAL JOKE. and the patronizing of the fans is especially galling. we have been played for fools for a long, long time. This post is hard to argue with. Spot on. The thing that really amazes me from a personal standpoint is that I continue to show up here on a daily basis and read about this loser organization. I think I have issues. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins Seventy Chip Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 we have BAFOONS running this team from a FO perspective. 2 playoff appearnces in 14 years. Actually, you are wrong. Not bafoons, but real monkeys! See the link below my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins Seventy Chip Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The thing that really amazes me from a personal standpoint is that I continue to show up here on a daily basis and read about this loser organization. I think I have issues. Unfortunately, you are absolutely right. I spend countless hours obsessing over this team, thinking and writing about ways in which it could improve, when, in fact, it doesn't matter what I think or say or do, none of it will affect this team. I actually sometimes am dreaming about how bad the ****ing Redskins are. Those are issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Emrys Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I take it that you don't believe that Joe Gibbs is really in charge. Agreed. Is anyone else getting tired of hearing how the FO is to blame for so many of our personel decisions? Put the blame where it belongs. Snyder handed over control of the team's personel to Gibbs 3 seasons ago. He freaked out when Portis got hurt and had to get Duckett. It was a bad decision, not by the FO, but by Gibbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAFGA Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Isn't Gibbs part of the FO, too, if he's making personnel decisions? If not, then who is the front office? Vinny Cerrato? He's not the GM. He's a concierge for Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Betts was injured or slightly banged up at the time also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 At the time we needed a RB cause Portis's status was uncertain, the Skins thought there would be some problems there if CPs injury didnt get better. Gibbs stated this numerous times. So at the time it was a great move, but it didnt turn out that way, get over it. That just shows how bad our front office is.If they are now going to give Betts a contract and start him over Duckett.Why the hell didn't we just keep our 3rd round pick and play Betts.Wait we are playing Betts and now we dont have a 3rd round pick.They should have known what they had in Betts.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Betts was injured or slightly banged up at the time also Slightly banged up not year ending injury.I blame Gibbs for that stupid play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Sure could've used that money to keep Pierce, Smoot, and Clark. Could've used the picks on D-line help. Could've used Carlos Rogers' pick on an impact DE. All problems on Defense solved!!! keeping Smoot and pierce had nothing to do with that money if we spend 30 milliopn next year also are we gonna hear the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Here is what I would have done as general manager. I would have named Patrick Ramsey the starter in 2004. Picked up a decent Backup like Kitna or someone that was available at the time because he wasnt I dont think. I would have defianatly traded for portis then i would have used the rest of that draft to fill in the wholes we have and we could have had cooley without giving up a draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The coaching staff should have had faith in Rock Cartwright, I like TJ but I honestly thought they brought him in because they were going to let Betts go. But this whole "follow Gibbs" thing isn't working out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins Seventy Chip Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 keeping Smoot and Pierce had nothing to do with that money if we spend 30 milliopn next year also are we gonna hear the same thing? Yes they did have something to do with it. The rationalle for not keeping Smoot and Pierce at the time, as given by Gibbs was that the team was attempting to give fair offers to the two that were in step with other players on the team. He used two examples at his press conference after they were both signed away. He said that Smoot should not be making more than Springs. He said that Pierce should not be making more than Washington. We could have kept both players for a million or two more, but Gibbs wanted to keep their salaries in line with players of comparable talent already on the team. Fast forward to this offseason: We let go of Clark because we "weren't going to spend wildly anymore" Then, we turn around and make Archuletta the richest safety in the league. Is he better than Taylor? We give 10 million dollar bonuses for a #3 WR/ PR, a worse than average #2 receiver, a DE who was playing LB last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Yes they did have something to do with it. The rationalle for not keeping Smoot and Pierce at the time, as given by Gibbs was that the team was attempting to give fair offers to the two that were in step with other players on the team. He used two examples at his press conference after they were both signed away. He said that Smoot should not be making more than Springs. He said that Pierce should not be making more than Washington. We could have kept both players for a million or two more, but Gibbs wanted to keep their salaries in line with players of comparable talent already on the team. There is more to it than just that. There is the fact that both teams frontloaded their offers, and knew that there was no way we could match them. Not to mention that both players decided to leave for the money, because they wanted to get paid. We let go of Clark because we "weren't going to spend wildly anymore" Again, there is more than just that. Clark wasn't going to be the starter here anymore, and we certainly wasn't going to pay him more to be a backup. And let's not mistake Clark for Ed Reed. He's a decent enough player, but he's not a worldbeater and is replaceable. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 OK, so all of you guys that think it was a bad move....WHO WOULD YOU OF PICKED UP? OR WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY? Since you are all professional general managers here Its over your beating a dead horse I would have picked up Najeh Davenport off the street, like the Steelers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Again, there is more than just that. Clark wasn't going to be the starter here anymore, and we certainly wasn't going to pay him more to be a backup. And let's not mistake Clark for Ed Reed. He's a decent enough player, but he's not a worldbeater and is replaceable. Jason So they wouldn't slightly overpay Clark to be a backup, but they would wildly overpay Archuletta to be a platoon guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherokee Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Coach Gibbs always emphasizes fundamental football. Even mediocre football teams will show a winning season when each player knows their role, and play within themselves. Coaches try to simplify the game, at first, then ponderously add or tweak what the starters know, expanding the teams schemes. When a team is coached properly, I would imagine it shouldn't matter who is on the field. It will, however, put a damper on consistency. Anxiety and mishaps on execution can contribute to penalties. Without starters, who take most of the reps in practice, on the field, we are doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 So they wouldn't slightly overpay Clark to be a backup' date=' but they would wildly overpay Archuletta to be a platoon guy?[/quote']That's assuming that was the intention of bringing in Arch. The book is not yet done on Arch, so we may find out eventually, or they might write him off. Personally, I look at the former. In any case, I think Clark left more because he wanted to start rather than not being paid enough. Considering that Sean Taylor is the FS here, and that Clark wasn't really suited for SS, his move made sense. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 At the time we needed a RB cause Portis's status was uncertain, the Skins thought there would be some problems there if CPs injury didnt get better. Gibbs stated this numerous times. So at the time it was a great move, but it didnt turn out that way, get over it. BS we had Betts and Rock we did not have to give up picks for TJ, we had time why did we make the move so fast, the trading deadline is november we did not have to rush. The reason we made that move was to block TJ from going to the eagles and looking back, who cares if he went we were never a superbowl caliber team and Gibbs thought we were, which may be a big reason of why this team failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 That's assuming that was the intention of bringing in Arch. The book is not yet done on Arch, so we may find out eventually, or they might write him off. Personally, I look at the former.In any case, I think Clark left more because he wanted to start rather than not being paid enough. Considering that Sean Taylor is the FS here, and that Clark wasn't really suited for SS, his move made sense. Jason They brought Arch in to help against the run and be more of a force with the blitz, but what they did not realize was the d would not be agressive and Arch was a liability in coverage. The fact the highest paid saftey in the league can not start speaks volume of our ability to not see talent, which is you need someone else making those decisions, coaches should not be the ones picking players, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JCsSkins Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 The Ducket deal sums up the Gibbs II era......... Gave up too much for an unproven player, then under utilized him. The only thing they haven't done yet is over pay him. BUT the skins only release players who play very well for them like Pierce, Walt Harris, Smoot, Ryan Clark, etc. So I'm sure the skins will sign TJ to a stupidly huge contract and be laughed at this time next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 This move simply cannot be defended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.