KDawg Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The Redskins have went thus far in the 2007 Offseason without a single big splash in the proverbial free agent/trade pool. And most of us really liked that fact. The rumors of a Briggs trade to Washington for a swap of firsts and the All Pro Linebacker caused some major disruptions in the water. I read all these threads where people threaten to no longer be a Redskin fan if such and such a move is made. I also see people jumping to conclusions about Rocky McIntosh's ultimate demise due to the mention of the words "trade" and "Briggs". And I can understand how one might leap to that conclusion, but it's a leap. But that's a different debate. As is the whole "If we sign Briggs we can't sign Cooley and Taylor" fiasco. The purpose of this thread is to explain things the way I see them. Not factual, because I'm not 100% sure of anything either, but I'm going to explain the way I see things none the less. The Redskins, whether we like it or not have a reputation around the league for being overspending, trade hoarding, free agent snagging sons of guns... And up till this point it would be hard to argue with such a description. And now this whole Briggs thing comes on the table, followed by the news that the Redskins are looking at Russell and Quinn and Peterson (+ more). Now, 95% of the time, if this were used as a smokescreen tactic, no one would believe it. The Redskins just drafted Campbell and handed the reigns over to him, they'd be nuts to draft another QB, right? They just inked Betts to a deal and Portis is still on the roster, drafting Peterson would be a deathwish, right? Of course. But, since we have a reputation for making the dumb move (although not all of our moves have been dumb, and if enough research is done I'm sure you can find plenty of bad personnel moves around the league) why not use that to our advantage? Who knows if the Redskins are actually going to draft Russell? Not us. Now, most of us realize the probability of that happening is slim to none, but if you're a team picking behind us with any kind of intention on drafting any of those guys, you better be on your toes. We're nuts, remember? We don't have a great recent history of picking players up... The saying use what you have to your advantage comes into play here. We have a bad reputation. Why not use it? Smoke screen or not, teams are going to have to question whether we're serious or not. And with the rumors of us wanting to trade up, if some team sees the 'Skins move up ahead of them in the draft they may just be willing to part with something in order to get the player they want before we do. Or they may not. But we can put that effort in and see if any sharks nibble at the bait. Now, I realize we probably would have scouted these guys anyways. Let's be honest, it's part of the job to be prepared... There's many reasons to check these guys out... 1) Possible future opponents 2) Possible future free agents 3) Possible future Redskins 4) Bait and switch tactics The list goes on and on. Why is every free agent linked to us? Well, I'd guess mostly due to media. But I sometimes wonder if the Redskins express interest in everyone just to see what happens. As another thread suggested "Gibbs has us scratching our heads". And that's a good thing. I agree. At this point you can do one of two things: A) Believe in Joe Jackson Gibbs, the man who won us 3 Lombardies (albeit the last came over a decade ago) and realize he's going to make the decision he feels is best to help the team. or Decide Joe Gibbs is an idiot and knows nothing about football. And that choice is yours. But I ask that you try to read between the lines a bit more clearly before getting too excited. It's still the offseason. Plenty of football left to be played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktball74 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Great post Kdawg, and I agree with you. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 You ramble too much. Good points though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 good thread! So according to your theory Lenny P. is our best friend in a sick, watching-two-dogs-get-stuck, kind of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Geez what a long Post ... but I gotta admit Kdawg I agree with your punch line: "Joe Gibbs IS an idiot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justsomeguy Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Great post. I liked it alot, alot of good points. A new quarter back sitting on the bench ready to go as opposed to Brunnel or Collins I think is a reasonable move depending on what happens in FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bantu Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Glass half full interpretation. I tend to doubt that our FO is that smart, though. The FO has courage and is aggressive, but clever they are not. They are doing these things cuz they're dumb. The Briggs trade will go through next week and most likely with us giving up more than we offered before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justsomeguy Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Geez what a long Post ... but I gotta admit Kdawg I agree with your punch line:"Joe Gibbs IS an idiot." Yeah you should be our coach instead of him. No I take it back You are an idiot. Three Lombardis mean nothing compared to your insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The whole BIG SPLASH notion is a bit of hype -- aside from the off-seasons in 2000 and 2006, the Redskins have not made any more BIG SPLASH free agent moves than most other teams. I imagine that Steve Spurrier was a big splash move, but many head coaching decisions are big splash moves (Bill Parcells isn't a big splash move?), so that seems a little nit-picky to me. If you look at the league as a whole, you'll see a bunch of teams making high profile and lower profile moves all the time, but they don't have a young, super rich, arrogant owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The premise of this thread is flawed because the interest in Briggs was followed up with an actual OFFER. This wasn't us just drumming up interest, or "using our reputation to our advantage." We made an offer to the Bears, and if they accepted, the trade goes through. We wouldn't have made that offer unless we were seriously willing to go through with it - which we clearly were. It's a horrendous move, as has already been demonstrated ad nauseum, and the fact that the front office was willing to do it shows they they have no idea how to build a team. You give the front office too much credit, and the evidence weighs against your theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bantu Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Yeah you should be our coach instead of him. No I take it back You are an idiot. Three Lombardis mean nothing compared to your insight. I know it sux to hear bad things about a guy we've loved and respected for almost 30 years, but he will be the first to admit he has faired pretty badly so far in his second run. And yes, 3 Lombardis mean squat right now. Joe Gibbs said it himself. The past doesn't buy us anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The only problem with "scaring" other teams about dem crazy Skins, is that it might also cause a team that does want one of the premier players to trade ahead of us - to beat us to the punch. If by one theory we are actually trying to do something smart, then someone coming in ahead of us hurts us. One thing seems to be clear, we don't want to pick at #6. If we really wanted to pick at #6 then we wouldn't be running all of these "smoke screens." If we actually want to trade up - well of course all of the talk drives the price of us trading up. I sincerely hope everything is a smoke screen because what we really want to do is to trade down and we want to scare someone into getting to our spot. But that is something that probably would be tough to consumate until we're on the clock (unless it's a trade with a team way down in the 1st who is interested in one of several players who by definition will have to be available at #6). And once we're on the clock, obviously the trade up scenario has already gone away. At this point a successful draft might be one that we don't give away any more picks in. Heck, we gave up the 37th pick in this year's draft to trade up to get Rocky - an apparently disposable player after only one year. I sincerely believe that we are more than one or two players away from being a SB team. We have to keep our picks in the future and get more picks in the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassow Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Each team in the NFL is only allowed 20 individual player visits (sans local players). If I were a skins fan, I would want my team using those visits on players they are actually contemplating drafting. I'd want them to spend visits evaluating prospects they think will be available during the later rounds, not just the first. How exactly does this process make sense? Due diligence is one thing, but wasting your time and missing out on the opportunity to meet players you would actually draft is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 Ahh, hello negative Nancies... I was waiting for you to show up. The premise of my thread isn't "flawed". What's flawed is the logistics of some of you. In particularly gregpeck, who I've come to the conclusion is a closet Cowboys fan. It's okay, Peck. Really. You don't have to hide any more. No, the idea of this thread was to show that there could be more than meets the eye with this offseason. It wasn't JUST about the Briggs move, I'm sorry I didn't write a 3 sentence waste post to appease some of you. I realize most of your attention spans aren't that long. Bantu, We won a playoff game in his second run. How many of our other coaches have done that since him? I'll give you a hint... One. So 15 years since he last retired and we have two playoffs wins, one of which was by Joe Gibbs himself. Yeah, he's been a miserable coach. Don't let fact cloud your judgement. Ernie5, Absolutely. That was kind of the point. Whether it's all hype or not, we have it. May as well get the most out of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Keep preaching it, brother! (btw- smoke screen has become the most overused phrase here since vanilla offense.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel70ChipOnWhite Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The Redskins have went thus far in the 2007 Offseason without a single big splash in the proverbial free agent/trade pool. And most of us really liked that fact. The rumors of a Briggs trade to Washington for a swap of firsts and the All Pro Linebacker caused some major disruptions in the water. I read all these threads where people threaten to no longer be a Redskin fan if such and such a move is made. I also see people jumping to conclusions about Rocky McIntosh's ultimate demise due to the mention of the words "trade" and "Briggs". And I can understand how one might leap to that conclusion, but it's a leap. But that's a different debate. As is the whole "If we sign Briggs we can't sign Cooley and Taylor" fiasco. The purpose of this thread is to explain things the way I see them. Not factual, because I'm not 100% sure of anything either, but I'm going to explain the way I see things none the less. The Redskins, whether we like it or not have a reputation around the league for being overspending, trade hoarding, free agent snagging sons of guns... And up till this point it would be hard to argue with such a description. And now this whole Briggs thing comes on the table, followed by the news that the Redskins are looking at Russell and Quinn and Peterson (+ more). Now, 95% of the time, if this were used as a smokescreen tactic, no one would believe it. The Redskins just drafted Campbell and handed the reigns over to him, they'd be nuts to draft another QB, right? They just inked Betts to a deal and Portis is still on the roster, drafting Peterson would be a deathwish, right? Of course. But, since we have a reputation for making the dumb move (although not all of our moves have been dumb, and if enough research is done I'm sure you can find plenty of bad personnel moves around the league) why not use that to our advantage? Who knows if the Redskins are actually going to draft Russell? Not us. Now, most of us realize the probability of that happening is slim to none, but if you're a team picking behind us with any kind of intention on drafting any of those guys, you better be on your toes. We're nuts, remember? We don't have a great recent history of picking players up... The saying use what you have to your advantage comes into play here. We have a bad reputation. Why not use it? Smoke screen or not, teams are going to have to question whether we're serious or not. And with the rumors of us wanting to trade up, if some team sees the 'Skins move up ahead of them in the draft they may just be willing to part with something in order to get the player they want before we do. Or they may not. But we can put that effort in and see if any sharks nibble at the bait. Now, I realize we probably would have scouted these guys anyways. Let's be honest, it's part of the job to be prepared... There's many reasons to check these guys out... 1) Possible future opponents 2) Possible future free agents 3) Possible future Redskins 4) Bait and switch tactics The list goes on and on. Why is every free agent linked to us? Well, I'd guess mostly due to media. But I sometimes wonder if the Redskins express interest in everyone just to see what happens. As another thread suggested "Gibbs has us scratching our heads". And that's a good thing. I agree. At this point you can do one of two things: A) Believe in Joe Jackson Gibbs, the man who won us 3 Lombardies (albeit the last came over a decade ago) and realize he's going to make the decision he feels is best to help the team. or Decide Joe Gibbs is an idiot and knows nothing about football. And that choice is yours. But I ask that you try to read between the lines a bit more clearly before getting too excited. It's still the offseason. Plenty of football left to be played Good post. The grass isn't always greener........ask the teams with 0 Super Bowls in their team history....at least we have something to dwell on. Faith in Joe, faith in Joe boys and girls!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer is Food Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Stupid like a fox! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishGangsta Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Geez what a long Post ... but I gotta admit Kdawg I agree with your punch line:"Joe Gibbs IS an idiot." grrr.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 The premise of this thread is flawed because the interest in Briggs was followed up with an actual OFFER. This wasn't us just drumming up interest, or "using our reputation to our advantage." We made an offer to the Bears, and if they accepted, the trade goes through. We wouldn't have made that offer unless we were seriously willing to go through with it - which we clearly were. It's a horrendous move, as has already been demonstrated ad nauseum, and the fact that the front office was willing to do it shows they they have no idea how to build a team. You give the front office too much credit, and the evidence weighs against your theory.Question...what if the trade does go through and we have had a plan the whole time to package a couple of picks (including maybe a second rounder from next season) plus a player to move back up in this years round #1 and we get either Carriker, Moses or maybe even Branch? Would you still consider the Briggs deal as being "horrendous?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 Stupid like a fox! Care to elaborate? Or do you feel your four word post had enough detail in it for it to make any kind of sense? I'm struggling to find the meaning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerpSkin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Originally Posted by thinkerThe only problem with "scaring" other teams about dem crazy Skins, is that it might also cause a team that does want one of the premier players to trade ahead of us - to beat us to the punch. If by one theory we are actually trying to do something smart, then someone coming in ahead of us hurts us. One thing seems to be clear, we don't want to pick at #6. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, it could be we want to scare some people into jumping up in front of us and picking the skill players like Peterson, Quinn, Johnson, and Russell. If we want to draft a DL at 6, then we want our #1 choice of DL prospects. There are some who think Arizona might draft a DL, in which case they could very easily scoop the DL we've been coveting (whoever that may be). If Peterson or one of the QBs drops to 5, our scare tactics may convince some other team to trade up with Arizona to get him, and assure us our choice of DL. This may not be the case... but nothing the Skins have been doing convinces that we definitely do not want to pick at 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 Question...what if the trade does go through and we have had a plan the whole time to package a couple of picks (including maybe a second rounder from next season) plus a player to move back up in this years round #1 and we get either Carriker, Moses or maybe even Branch? Would you still consider the Briggs deal as being "horrendous?" Canned response: Yes. Wait, I mean no. I mean... The FO isn't smart enough for that. This is stupid like a fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Great post Kdawg. I like when someone comes up with a different way of looking at things. We've been in this position before (2000 with the 3rd pick) and (2004 with the 5th pick)--hope I got the years right. In the first scenerio, we received New Orleans 1st pick via SF and were able to take Lavar and Chris. Most thought we would have to wait until Cleveland and SF take make their picks and we would get what's left. We got 2 players instead. In 04, we, the media, other teams and Even Kellen Winslow himself thought we'd take KWII, but we didn't. Had them all fooled. So I see the angle you are coming from and it isn't that far fetched considering we really need MORE picks. Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Canned response:Yes. Wait, I mean no. I mean... The FO isn't smart enough for that. This is stupid like a fox. :laugh: You just made me spit my water out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel70ChipOnWhite Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Question...what if the trade does go through and we have had a plan the whole time to package a couple of picks (including maybe a second rounder from next season) plus a player to move back up in this years round #1? Would you still consider the Briggs deal as being "horrendous?" But of course, all of the angry elves would absolutley :pooh: on any move the FO makes until we get back to the playoffs. At which point those same angry elves will find a way to ***** and moan if we dont win a Super Bowl. Fact is this FO probably deserves every bit of :pooh: they get from the fans based on our free agent blunders. Not supporting the FO, but not supporting all of the doomsday fans either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.