robotfire Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 The problem isn't that we get free agents. The problem isn't that we give draft picks away. The problem is that we are spending disproportionately on talent. Instead of rewarding guys for doing well, we're letting them go. Instead of paying free agents what they're worth, we're giving them ridiculous deals. There's no reason to get a general manager so that we can pick better guys for our team. They're already picking great players. A GM isn't a magician who sees through bad picks better than anyone else. The problem is mismanagement of contracts. Proof that Gibbs sees this and is fixing it: Ladell Betts. Hiring a general manager to trump who the coaches want is a bad idea. Hiring a general manager to decide how the money gets spent is a completely different animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitejimmy Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Good argument. However, we also re-upped Jon Jansen a few years ago and that didn't indicate the skins had changed their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Lets see what they do with Dockery before we say that things have changed. ANd I wonder how many of next year's draft picks we give away this year. Will we trade up for a guy who will be there at our pick, only to sit him all year (ala Campbell and Rocky)? Will we include a pick in a trade for a player, when the team is already willing to agree to the deal without the pick (ala Champ/Portis or Lloyd)? Or will we just trade away next years picks to get picks this year and waste them on overcrowded positions like WR? All I can say is wait and see. This offseason may not be good, it may not be bad, but it will definately be exciting. We've gotten used to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptChaos86 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I really dont know alot about the draft or GMs but i do know that alot of good redskins have came and gone and it seems like as soon as they leave they become superstars. Champ Bailey, Coles, Trent Green and others. I really hope all of this ceases and they start keeping core guys. I would like to see them keep the entire O-line together and keep key players like Moss, Cooley, ARE, Portis, Betts, and Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcl6f Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I agree that the problem has been overspending and giving away too many of our draft picks. If you look at the players we've acquired either thru FA, trades, or the draft in the past few years (Moss, Portis, Randy Thomas, Springs, ARE, Carter, Samuels, Betts, Cooley, Taylor, and Campbell) you can see that these are quality players that we can build around. Of course we sometimes end up with busts like Archuleta and Lloyd, but that can happen to any team. So in my opinion, evaluating talent isn't really the problem. If we could only have a few more picks in this year and next year's drafts we could possibly add a few more key, young players that can anchor this team for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 I really dont know alot about the draft or GMs but i do know that alot of good redskins have came and gone and it seems like as soon as they leave they become superstars. Champ Bailey, Coles, Trent Green and others. I really hope all of this ceases and they start keeping core guys. I would like to see them keep the entire O-line together and keep key players like Moss, Cooley, ARE, Portis, Betts, and Campbell.Keeping guys together is something that Gibbs has been saying he really believes in. Whether he can accomplish it is a different story. He hasn't really been successful with it so far, but he said that they didn't want to let Betts test free agency because they hadn't had good luck with that so far. Let's hope Betts is a sign of things to come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwitt Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 There is no defending the incompetence of our front office set up and the decisions they have made. The Brandon Lloyd deal is the perfect example and one of many. We ignored the red flags with this guy, ripped up the remaining year left on his contract (unheardof in the NFL in this situation), gave him the #1 WR money that he had not earned and that no one else in the league would have offered, and then overpayed with draft picks. A caveman would have been more prudent than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitejimmy Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Bashing Gibbs: A caveman would have been more prudent than this. Quoting Gibbs: All right men let's get it rollin' now, let's earn this thing today! So, kind of a love/hate thing, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 There is no defending the incompetence of our front office set up and the decisions they have made. The Brandon Lloyd deal is the perfect example and one of many. We ignored the red flags with this guy, ripped up the remaining year left on his contract (unheardof in the NFL in this situation), gave him the #1 WR money that he had not earned and that no one else in the league would have offered, and then overpayed with draft picks. A caveman would have been more prudent than this. exactly . . . it's almost like the Front Office is lazy. They don't feel like wasting their time trying to negotiate or bargain for FA's, they'd just rather give them $$$ for their potential. Imagine had we not signed Lloyd or AA what kind of financial situation we'd be in? And it's not that they signed those players, it's the amount of money we gave them. I mean seriously, we gave Lloyd a $10 million signing bonus? And he has never made the pro-bowl. Imagine had we tried negotiating through the season to re-do his contract how much levergae we would have - we still gave away 2 draft picks for him which is bad enough. How do the other players feel having to constantly re-do their contracts for players who haven't proven anything? It's like they agreed to go after both, because Gibbs and Saunders were so enamored with Lloyd's potenetial and acrobatic catches, that GW felt left out. How do you not sign a Smoot or a Pierce and offer a 10 million sigining bonus to a player coming off of an injury who is known to be one-dimensional? How could they let this happen, they threw all the cards on the table without even seeing the river cards? Those 2 deals right ther screwed us and will have a long lasting financial impact on our team. That could be the missing $$ we need to keep our true core guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwitt Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Bashing Gibbs:Quoting Gibbs: So, kind of a love/hate thing, huh? Exactly. I love Gibbs the head coach but hate what he does as a GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Those 2 deals right ther screwed us and will have a long lasting financial impact on our team. That could be the missing $$ we need to keep our true core guys. Not really. Last year and this year, they don't really have a big cap hit, and after 3 years of being here, they can be gotten rid of without too much of a cap hit. Neither of these contracts are nearly as bad as, say, Lavar's deal, or Coles' deal, or Samuels' deal. None of those guys could be gotten rid of without some bigtime pain. That's the difference between pre-Gibbs and now. Personally, I don't really care how much money a player gets, since I believe athletes are overpaid in the first place. What I do care about, tho is how the contract affects how we aquire players or keep our own. It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go with Dockery. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kovachs Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I mean seriously, we gave Lloyd a $10 million signing bonus? And he has never made the pro-bowl. Imagine had we tried negotiating through the season to re-do his contract how much levergae we would have - we still gave away 2 draft picks for him which is bad enough. How do the other players feel having to constantly re-do their contracts for players who haven't proven anything? It also destroys team chemistry. If you are willing to give that much money to unproven guys who played for other teams, you're own free agents are going to want big money too and will be pissed if they don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shallyshal Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 It also destroys team chemistry. If you are willing to give that much money to unproven guys who played for other teams, you're own free agents are going to want big money too and will be pissed if they don't get it. despite all the lip service payed to chemistry, it is grossly overrated in importance.. the defense lacked talent, not chemistry. the offensive line had talent and it showed as they meshed towards the end of the season. this team really liked each other this year. how much good did it do ? look to new orleans for a fine example.. they blew up their offensive line over the past offseason and assembled a new one that in its first year together was dynamic and effective. there is simply no reason to fear the infusion of talent as long as it comes with integrity and hard work. the coaching has to be at a level that gets the players prepared every week.. that is another issue unrelated to chemistry that is far more important.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 They're already picking great players. I'm sure I could go with every FA acquisition this team made and show you that there were better and cheaper players available. That anyone could believe that our FO picks up great players is beyond me. Such a person can't possibly have been paying attention to reality (though they might have a great Madden team). Lloyd a great player? Hell no. Patten? Archuleta? Fauria? The ALL OLD guy 2004 crop? Brunell? Duckett? We can go on and on. If you honestly evaluate our players as compared to others in the league, we are terrible at talent evaluation. There were always someone better and/or cheaper available. Of course, our fans won't acknowledge that. They will act ARE is a great football player (he is not). They won't admit that he is a nice player; a gimmicky guy who ends up producing about as much as 50 other WRs in the league. This team has very, very few great players. Our management team is horrible because we pickup either busts or average players (but pay them like their great). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 And it's not that they signed those players, it's the amount of money we gave them.THAT is what I'm trying to say. That is EXACTLY my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 despite all the lip service payed to chemistry, it is grossly overrated in importance.. the defense lacked talent, not chemistry. the offensive line had talent and it showed as they meshed towards the end of the season. this team really liked each other this year. how much good did it do ?I'm in a band. We don't have as much talent as some bands, but we have been together for a while. The longer we play together, the better we get as a band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 THAT is what I'm trying to say. That is EXACTLY my point. Your point is wrong. You are presenting the following scenario: "The team signed great players but overpaid for them. Therefore the problem is that we overpaid for them. If we paid market value for them, we would be great." That is not the scenario. The scenario is as follows: "The team signed a bunch of aging, average players with name recognition for various things in that past to absurd contracts. The players aren't great. And we overpaid for them. If we paid market value for them, we would be average or worse. That we overpaid for makes it a travesty." Do you see the difference? Yes overpaying for them makes it truly tragic. But they are not good personnel moves at any price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Yeah agree with the posts about us paying players who we deem have potential as if they are already stars. The Skins get accused of loading the team with star after star -- I disagree -- most of our signings aren't of Pro-Bowlers we just pay them as if they are. I see on a lot of posts that we link losing Fred Smoot as up there with Ryan Clark and Antonio Pierce. But I don't see it. Smoot hasn't tore it up with the Vikings, in fact he lost his job he's their nickle corner as far as I understand now. Steve Smith flat out embarassed Smoot last year and it was all over sports media. Ryan Clark wasn't a stud safety, he was OK but apparently he helped glue the secondary together. So Clark is missed. But, Antonio Pierce is entirely different matter -- he's a stud middle linebacker, first alternate to the pro-bowl. Giants like Michael Strahan say its not him but Antonio who is the heart and soul of the Giants defense and is their integral player. Antonio relishes beating us and hasn't lost to us in a game he has started. He says he can anticipate both our offense and defense -- he's the guy the first time they played against each other according to the press who told the Giants offense that Gregg Williams prepares for the 10 plays offenses use the most -- and told Tiki to mimic his most frequent play and then switch directions in the same play -- he did, the defense over pursued and Tiki ran for like a 60 yard run and ate us alive that game. The fact that the Skins can let Pierce go to a division rival -- give that team a window into how we do things -- and give them a stud defender with a chip on his shoulder to beat us -- drives me more crazy than any of the other dumb moves we made. And I don't rank losing Ryan Clark and especially Fred Smoot anywhere near this terrible move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 The Brandon Lloyd deal is the perfect example and one of many. We ignored the red flags with this guy, ripped up the remaining year left on his contract (unheardof in the NFL in this situation), gave him the #1 WR money that he had not earned and that no one else in the league would have offered, and then overpayed with draft picks.A caveman would have been more prudent than this. "Thaaaank you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidernat Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 There is no defending the incompetence of our front office set up and the decisions they have made. The Brandon Lloyd deal is the perfect example and one of many. We ignored the red flags with this guy, ripped up the remaining year left on his contract (unheardof in the NFL in this situation), gave him the #1 WR money that he had not earned and that no one else in the league would have offered, and then overpayed with draft picks. A caveman would have been more prudent than this. Are you that dude from the GEICO commercial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Your point is wrong.You are presenting the following scenario: "The team signed great players but overpaid for them. Therefore the problem is that we overpaid for them. If we paid market value for them, we would be great." That is not the scenario. The scenario is as follows: "The team signed a bunch of aging, average players with name recognition for various things in that past to absurd contracts. The players aren't great. And we overpaid for them. If we paid market value for them, we would be average or worse. That we overpaid for makes it a travesty." Do you see the difference? Yes overpaying for them makes it truly tragic. But they are not good personnel moves at any price. Aside from Brunell and Patten, who are these aging players you speak of that got absurd contracts? Also, Patten was actually relatively cheap. And you're telling me that if we got Brandon Lloyd for the league minimum, it would have been a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderMustGo Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 And you're telling me that if we got Brandon Lloyd for the league minimum, it would have been a mistake? Absolutely. Did you watch the season and his play? Did you see him get benched? Did you miss all the turmoil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.