Prisco says Mendes is gone + Palmer,LJ rated top at their positions

[DeathByLinebacker]

Found this note in Prisco's column at CBS.Sportsline.com

http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6040337

Read into this what you will, but the Redskins didn't send Joe Mendes, the vice president of football operations, to the league meetings last week. Why is that significant? It looks like a done deal that Mendes will be let go after the season when he loses a power play with Vinny Cerrato, the team's director of player personnel. Mendes is also not a favorite of coach Steve Spurrier, so he is all but gone after the season.

Also of interest in the same column (to me at least):

The National scouting service has completed its lists of graded players for the 2003 draft. The top players at each position are: USC's Carson Palmer (QB), Penn State's Larry Johnson (RB), Michigan State's Charles Rogers (WR), Tennessee's Jason Witten (TE), Utah's Jordan Gross (OL), Arizona State's Terrell Suggs (DE), Penn State's Jimmy Kennedy (DT), Auburn's Karlos Dansby (LB), Kansas State's Terrence Newman (CB) and Purdue's Stuart Schweigert (S). The quarterbacks ranked behind Palmer are Marshall's Byron Leftwich , Mississippi's Eli Manning, Cal's Kyle Boller and Chris Simms of Texas. What's interesting about these rankings is that they include underclassmen. Witten, Rogers, Manning, Suggs, Dansby and Schweigert are all underclassmen, and only Rogers has already formally submitted his name for the draft.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Mendes can't judge talent and has made a number of "penny wise, pound foolish" decisions this year that have hurt the team. His supposed strength, fiscal prudence, is thus a weakness when improperly exercised.

Surely the team can find a GM with fiscal prudence and also a better understanding of talent. Perhaps Ruskell.

As for Cerrato, although he's the forum's whipping boy, I haven't seen compelling evidence that he's poor at talent evaluation. Our draft seems to have been fairly strong, and the credit goes most directly to Cerrato. Mendes, by contrast, seems to have been driving most of the free agent decisions (OL), Stai trade, and disastrous negotiations with Ramsey. The cutting of Serwanga also would seem to trace to Mendes.

Ruskell has been said to have a good relationship with Spurrier, and he's well regarded in the league. I'd be comfortable with Ruskell and Cerrato running the front office, if they can focus on building the core of the team, such as the interior OL, instead of just splashy skill positions.

P.S. I'm editing this post to add a postscript in praise of Mendes. I've been putting heat on him for his mistakes, but he has a very nice quote in Friday's Post about the Jansen contract:

"We're extremely pleased to be able to sign one of our core players who exemplifies the Redskin personality, both on and off the field," said Joe Mendes, the Redskins' vice president of football operations. "Jon Jansen is a Redskin 365 days a year. He never misses a workout and has yet to miss a game. It's important for this organization to identify and ultimately reward that type of a player."

[DougWilliams]

is there any foundation for the Ruskell rumors? I'm not sure i"ve seen it anywhere else but on this board...

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

As for Cerrato, although he's the forum's whipping boy, I haven't seen compelling evidence that he's poor at talent evaluation.

His draft record at SF is abysmal - Terrell Owens was his only worthwhile pick in what - 4 years?

Getting Lavar and Samuels with the 2nd & 3rd was the right choice, but noone else from our '00 draft is still in the league.

Mendes & Snyder were behind Ramsey. The Guilded Genius was supposedly behind picking up Bauman. Betts was Cerrato's baby. If Betts develops (of which I'm very sceptical), then Vinny gets a passing grade for this year.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that Mendes has made a number of penny-wise pound-foolish moves. We need to let someone else run the draft this year. Maybe Danny could pony up a million bucks for Ron Wolf to come in as a draft consultant. I don't know much about Ruskell's draft record. Maybe One Dollar could enlighten us?

[KirkNC]

I have commented a couple times on the possibility of seeing Ruskell come on board; it is mostly speculation.

What I am sure is pretty accurate is that Spurrier regards Ruskell highly, they worked together in the USFL days. It is also common knowledge that they have remained very close friends.

GM would in fact be a promotion for Ruskell, it seems that Ruskell has been slighted by the ownership in Tampa in the past and his allegence would be less that concrete. His record in Tampa is steller! Tampa has done a decent job with the draft, a good job in FA, and IMO excelled at keeping thier core player intact.

While it is speculation on my behalf, the landscape seems right for this to become a reality.

[MRMADD]

ASF:

As for Cerrato, although he's the forum's whipping boy, I haven't seen compelling evidence that he's poor at talent evaluation. Our draft seems to have been fairly strong, and the credit goes most directly to Cerrato. Mendes, by contrast, seems to have been driving most of the free agent decisions (OL), Stai trade, and disastrous negotiations with Ramsey. The cutting of Serwanga also would seem to trace to Mendes.

Why do you think our draft was strong? It's almost universally regarded as an unmitigated disaster. Yes, we found some players, but so could a monkey with a dart board. Some people think Cerrato IS a monkey with a dart board. How can you justify taking Betts when we did?

And how do you decide that everything good is Cerrato's fault and everything bad is Mendes?

I think Cerrato's record in both San Francisco and here are pretty clear: he's a lousy judge of talent. I'd trust an 8th-grader with a good draft guide before him. Cerrato has his job because's he's Snyder's yes-man racketball partner, not because he knows what he's doing.

Personally, I think Mendes should be credited with doing all the heavy lifting to fix the cap mess we were in. Now we're in position to resign our good players and go find a couple of keepers in free agency -- without him, we could have been screwed, right?

But the bottom line is performance, and these guys haven't been able to put a winning squad together. If it were up to me, I'd hire a real GM and let him build his own team -- without either of these guys.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by MRMADD

Why do you think our draft was strong? It's almost universally regarded as an unmitigated disaster. Yes, we found some players, but so could a monkey with a dart board. Some people think Cerrato IS a monkey with a dart board. How can you justify taking Betts when we did?

And how do you decide that everything good is Cerrato's fault and everything bad is Mendes?

Addressing the second point, it appears that Cerrato's influence in the front office is primarily for college scouting -- i.e., ranking the players in preparation for the draft. Assuming his recommendations are not ignored, then credit for the draft should go most directly to Cerrato.

Mendes (with Snyder) makes the final decisions, and also is most responsible for balancing payroll and player acquisitions. Mendes and Helton clearly drove the Stai trade, and Mendes was also in charge of the disastrous Ramsey negotiations. Mendes and Helton also appeared to drive the OL free-agent acquisitions.

As for the draft, I don't know how you can call it an unmitigated disaster. We appear to have reaped a franchise QB, a starting-caliber CB, and a starting caliber FB at minimum; Royal will probably also be a starting TE; and Betts and Russell may yet become starters or key role players. So, yes, I think a draft with 4-6 starter-quality players (including a franchise QB) is a pretty d@mn good draft.

I'm not sure what the deal is with Betts and the coaching staff, but on the field he looks fine when given a chance. He's currently tied for #5 in the NFL for KR (way above Watson), and has looked good in limited appearances as a RB in the preseason and regular season. You can argue that Betts was picked too high, but he's not a bust yet.

[bulldog]

the problem with Cerrato as I have charted his career in the NFL is that he is far too willing to go out and make major gambles on signing veteran free agents instead of staying more patient and working the draft and value free agency to build his teams.

In SF, the 49ers spent a mint on disastrous moves to sign Antonio Langham at CB, Winfred Tubbs at LB and others.

Here in 2000 we signed Deion even though we had two corners who would still have made a nice tandem in Bailey and Green.

We could have added a third corner for less in free agency or the draft but instead invested a mint in a player that had some serious toe/foot questions that made his durability and longevity issues.

The middle of the 2000 draft was a nightmare. Lloyd Harrison never played corner for the Redskins. He was another guy that was inactive a lot as a rookie. Quincy Sanders never played a down for the team. Ethan Howell was an afterthought from the start.

If Mendes is taken out of the process, we need to replace him with a better resume than Vinny has.

[MRMADD]

Well, there are two ways to look at this: you can look at the players we've got and see what they've contributed, or you can look at the players we could have gotten... either way, it's 20/20 hindsight. Still, we entered the draft wanting to find help at QB, OG, WR, S, DE, and RB. We fixed QB, whiffed on OG and WR and DE, and made some questionable moves at RB.

Here's what we got:

Patrick Ramsey 1 QB Tulane: Didn't get the guy they wanted in the first round (Harrington), so they wisely traded down and got their second-favorite. Good job here.

Ladell Betts 2 RB Iowa: Widely regarded as a reach. Very few draftniks had him higher than the 3rd round. He hasn't proven them wrong on the field yet.

Rashad Bauman 3 CB Oregon: Great pick! One of the best corners in the draft -- his height lowered his draft value.

Cliff Russell 3 WR Utah: Odd pick. ESPN: "Russell presents a dilemma: while he has fabulous playmaking ability, he can't make the simple post play work." While he's got blinding speed, his injury history and lack of production make you wonder what we were thinking. We'll see if he can recover from his latest injury...

Andre Lott 5 CB Tennessee: He's contributing, which is all you can ask of a 5th rounder, right?

Robert Royal 5 TE LSU: Ditto.

Reggie Coleman 6 OT Tennessee: Not on the roster.

Jeff Grau 7 TE UCLA: Not on the roster.

Greg Scott 7 DE Hampton: Hey, at least he made the roster.

Rock Cartwright 7 FB Kansas State: Nice 7th round surprise.

All in all, if all Cerrato does is college scouting, I'm not sure this draft makes him look like a genius. If you take the other approach (looking at what we could have gotten), Cerrato looks even dumber. There are some players drafted after Betts who are making solid contributions to their teams that really could have helped us.

[JimboDaMan]

MRMADD, you make a couple of statements I'm not sure you can support. Essentially, you assume that we were drafting for need, which is clearly not the approach taken. Nor, historically, is it the most successful strategy.

For better or for worse, the strategy seems to have been skewed much more closely to best-available-player. That kind of strategy takes longer to evaluate, in part because you're not necessarily looking for immediate impact and in part because you might already have serviceble guys in place so the draftee is worked in more slowly.

Its possible that both Ramsey and Betts will prove not to be of starter quality, in which case I'd call this a poor draft. But we're a long way from that judgement. Obviously Bauman and Rock were good picks, and despite the injury I'd add Robert Royal to that list. Russell is impossible to evaluate, obviously Coleman and Grau didn't pan out. Overall I'd be hard put to call this an 'unmitigated disaster' and in fact even your own pick-by-pick analysis doesn't bear that statement out.

[MRMADD]

.

MRMADD, you make a couple of statements I'm not sure you can support. Essentially, you assume that we were drafting for need, which is clearly not the approach taken. Nor, historically, is it the most successful strategy.

We did draft for need. We needed a QB, and we chased him all over the draft board. What did you think we were swapping all those picks for? Historically, you're right that taking the best player available seems to work best, but if that was what we were doing, why did we trade out of our #18 pick?

For better or for worse, the strategy seems to have been skewed much more closely to best-available-player. That kind of strategy takes longer to evaluate, in part because you're not necessarily looking for immediate impact and in part because you might already have serviceble guys in place so the draftee is worked in more slowly.

No, it wasn't. Maybe you're arguing that it should have been, but it clearly wasn't. We had a couple of players in the first round that we coveted at need positions (QB, WR), and when they weren't available we traded down to get one. That's drafting for need. When you're taking the best player available, you don't swap picks 20 times.

Its possible that both Ramsey and Betts will prove not to be of starter quality, in which case I'd call this a poor draft. But we're a long way from that judgement. Obviously Bauman and Rock were good picks, and despite the injury I'd add Robert Royal to that list. Russell is impossible to evaluate, obviously Coleman and Grau didn't pan out. Overall I'd be hard put to call this an 'unmitigated disaster' and in fact even your own pick-by-pick analysis doesn't bear that statement out[

I think that draft, while it did give us Ramsey and Bauman, was pretty bad -- of course, if Ramsey turns out to be an All-Pro, all is forgiven. We failed to address our most glaring needs (despite trying to draft for need) at WR and OG, and we burned our second rounder on a player who has made no real contribution this year when there were better players on the board. Other than Ramsey, who we thought so little of that we tried trade to the Bears, this draft yielded no starters and precious few future starters. I think only Ramsey and Bauman fit in that category. Rock is a good role player. Betts might turn out to be OK, but we could have had a starter this year with his pick.

All of this is just hindsight, though. I don't think any team truly drafts solely for need or just takes the best available player. If you have a great QB and the best player on the board is a QB and the second-best is a WR that you need, who do you draft? No brainer. On the other hand, in the later rounds you just take your top-rated guy. I think that's how it generally works: in the early rounds, use a balanced need/best-available approach, and later in the draft switch to a more pure best-available approach.

Let's say it's the second round this year and our choices are: (1) a LB who grades out the highest on our board, (2) a CB who grades out second highest, or a (3) guard that grades out 3rd-highest. In my opinion, we'd be insane not to pick the guard. We desperately need a guard and we're pretty stocked at the other two positions. Maybe you trade down in that situation, but you certainly don't take the best available player. In my opinion.