GM- We don't need no stinkin' GM!

[TheLongshot]

The parlimentry approach to decision making has to end.

I don't know if I agree with that. While Beathard and Gibbs worked well in the past, Beathard also got a lot of players which Gibbs didn't end up wanting. At least now we know every player we get is one that Gibbs and his coaches wanted.

After Gibbs leaves, then a good GM is necessary.

It all depends. If Gibbs stays on as Team President, no changes are really needed.

But, I don't think those fans who want a strong GM are ever going to get it under Snyder, because that's not the way he wants to run his organization.

Furthermore, replacing Cerrato now may be necessary.

Why? Gibbs seems to be happy with him and his staff.

With the seeming lack of clear leadership now, I think Gibbs is our best bet to steer the ship. I think we both suspect Snyder and his "yes man" Cerrato have more influence on Gibbs decisions than we would like. However, Gibbs overall aggresive strategy has moved the organization forward. In fact, it has shined a spotlight on FO mistakes. We are much better off now than we were prior to Gibbs arrival. And, I expect much bigger things next year. Usurping Gibbs authority by bringing in a new GM will derail that progress.

Uh, Gibbs IS the clear leader of this organization. Sure, he does concur with Vinny's aggressive philosophy in acquiring players, but that isn't that much different than what happened under Beathard and Casserly with him around, so he's used to doing that. He's also usually preferred vets over rookies in his career as well. Nothing new there.

I think what has moved this team forward is having stability on top. It is kinda hard to move forward when you change coaches like your underwear.

Jason

[Beer is Food]

Gibbs walked away the first time because of the time committment. His health deteriorated and he didnt have any family time. He's not putting in the hours that he was before. I believe that you need to find a GM that has a good eye for talent and understands todays players, but more importantly can get along with Gibbs and work with Gibbs.

Obviously his total control has failed miserably. Look at last years draft. We sold the farm to acquire Rocky McIntosh and then didnt play him. We gave up a 3rd round pick to acquire T.J. Duckett and then wouldnt use him. These descisions were not well thought out and were made on a whim. You need someone that can serve as a intermediary between the owner and the Coach. Right now we have an owner that will buy anything the coach wants. This is a double edged sword because obviously buying talent will get you an 8-8 record. In this league you need to build talent.

You can catagorize FO mistakes into strategy or evaluation mistakes. Gibbs is responsible for strategy mistakes. Cerratto is responsible for evaluaton mistakes. By being aggressive in your approach you can decipher between the 2. As we know from this draft- williams places an emphasis on the safety position. Niether Betts nor Portis have been all that effective in short yardage. And, WLB was a glaring need last year. All these moves were sound in strategy yet lacked good evaulation (except hopefully Rocky). The point is the organization is willing to pay more in both draft picks and salary in order to land targets. If Archulatta was a pro-bowler and Duckett moved the chains- we would be talking about brilliant moves. Instead they failed. (Duckett couldn't be trusted enough to even make it on to the field) So the skins organization and everyone else for that matter- can pin point who made these idiotic evaluations. Was it Gibbs? NO! He's more of leader and a coach- not an evaluator. It was Gibbs, relying on input and making a decision from a short list provided by Cerratto. Should Cerrato be blamed? YES!

And, as far as Gibbs work ethic... hopefully he won't be burned out again until after he leads us to another SB.

[TheLongshot]

Obviously his total control has failed miserably. Look at last years draft. We sold the farm to acquire Rocky McIntosh and then didnt play him. We gave up a 3rd round pick to acquire T.J. Duckett and then wouldnt use him. These descisions were not well thought out and were made on a whim.

Yet, Rocky is going to be a starter this year. Hell, Dallas drafted Bobby Carpenter in the first round, and he didn't get significant playing time until the end of the year.

As for TJ, while I didn't like the trade, I understood the logic behind it. Fact is, they knew Portis probably wasn't going to hold up last year, and they were unsure about Betts. At the time, they were looking at making a strong playoff run, and they knew that without RB depth, it wasn't going to happen.

You need someone that can serve as a intermediary between the owner and the Coach. Right now we have an owner that will buy anything the coach wants. This is a double edged sword because obviously buying talent will get you an 8-8 record. In this league you need to build talent.

I don't think building talent is as important as it used to be. Fact is, by the time you get a drafted player to the point where he's pretty good, he hits the market and becomes much more expensive. You can mitigate it somewhat, but most of the time you are either going to bite the bullet for some of these players, and others you are going to need to let go.

In this day and age, you get players however you can get them. Sometimes you develop them, sometimes you trade for them, and sometimes you sign them as free agents.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

Niether Betts nor Portis have been all that effective in short yardage. And, WLB was a glaring need last year. All these moves were sound in strategy yet lacked good evaulation (except hopefully Rocky). The point is the organization is willing to pay more in both draft picks and salary in order to land targets. If Archulatta was a pro-bowler and Duckett moved the chains- we would be talking about brilliant moves. Instead they failed. (Duckett couldn't be trusted enough to even make it on to the field) So the skins organization and everyone else for that matter- can pin point who made these idiotic evaluations. Was it Gibbs? NO! He's more of leader and a coach- not an evaluator. It was Gibbs, relying on input and making a decision from a short list provided by Cerratto. Should Cerrato be blamed? YES!

I think you misevaluated why we got Duckett. It isn't because we felt a need for a short yardage back. It is because with Portis' injury, Gibbs didn't like our depth at RB. Gibbs also wasn't sure about Betts, and probably didn't know if we could keep him last offseason. Duckett was a rather expensive insurance policy. I don't think the intention was ever to bring him in primarily for short yardage, since we never really used him for those situations.

Jason

[Beer is Food]

I don't know if I agree with that. While Beathard and Gibbs worked well in the past, Beathard also got a lot of players which Gibbs didn't end up wanting. At least now we know every player we get is one that Gibbs and his coaches wanted.

It all depends. If Gibbs stays on as Team President, no changes are really needed.

But, I don't think those fans who want a strong GM are ever going to get it under Snyder, because that's not the way he wants to run his organization.

Why? Gibbs seems to be happy with him and his staff.

Uh, Gibbs IS the clear leader of this organization. Sure, he does concur with Vinny's aggressive philosophy in acquiring players, but that isn't that much different than what happened under Beathard and Casserly with him around, so he's used to doing that. He's also usually preferred vets over rookies in his career as well. Nothing new there.

I think what has moved this team forward is having stability on top. It is kinda hard to move forward when you change coaches like your underwear.

Jason

Hey Long shot- I've read alot of posts so I know I'm going to have to work on this one. (Insert smiley here)

From past posts I know you usually argue- Gibbs has total control and the buck stops with him. I disagree- and believe Snyder has quite of bit of influence. How much... who knows? But, I don't think Gibbs has total control in the sense that he has to put up with a meddling owner.

My position against a parlimentry approach to decision making is based on my opinion that I would rather have a HOF coach make the final call with as little interference as possible from Snyder. If we bring in a GM, this will increase Snyder's role.

In terms of Cerrato's value- you mention that Gibbs seems to be happy with him. The gray area with this assumption is huge. Gibbs may very well be happy with him. Considering Cerrato and Snyder seems to be friends, Gibbs may not be happy with him at all, but politically it may be difficult to demand his dismissal. Or, maybe Gibbs total control doesn't quite reach the personnel staff. If you made me guess... I would say Gibbs doesn't like him, but knows he would be stepping in a hornets nest with Snyder, so the next step would be to try minimalize Carrato's input by bringing additional staff in to oversee evaluations. Regardless, Gibbs is a leader, and as leader, he will always accept blame for the organization, and try to do his best to fix what he can fix.

And as far as your last point, the Redskins organization has been aggressive for years- for the most part. Since Gibbs they have been hyper aggressive in not only FA, and trades, but they also seem to move up more in the draft. With that said, they also overhauled the team. I don't disagree with you. What I'm saying is that being aggressive is the correct strategy. Seems to me that a large portion of this board disagree.

[Beer is Food]

I think you misevaluated why we got Duckett. It isn't because we felt a need for a short yardage back. It is because with Portis' injury, Gibbs didn't like our depth at RB. Gibbs also wasn't sure about Betts, and probably didn't know if we could keep him last offseason. Duckett was a rather expensive insurance policy. I don't think the intention was ever to bring him in primarily for short yardage, since we never really used him for those situations.

Jason

I did fail to mention the Portis injury. I see that as just an added need to bring a RB, not necessarily the primary need. If you look at 2005, the skins were poor at short yardage. I think Gibbs wanted a short yardage back like when he brought Riggs to team for short yardage and goal line situations. And, you didn't see Duckett on the field period. I'm not sure why he wasn't trusted. I thought it had to do with poor pass blocking skills- he couldn;t pick up the blitz. But- who knows?

[TheLongshot]

I did fail to mention the Portis injury. I see that as just an added need to bring a RB, not necessarily the primary need. If you look at 2005, the skins were poor at short yardage. I think Gibbs wanted a short yardage back like when he brought Riggs to team for short yardage and goal line situations. And, you didn't see Duckett on the field period. I'm not sure why he wasn't trusted. I thought it had to do with poor pass blocking skills- he couldn;t pick up the blitz. But- who knows?

I think you need a history lesson. Riggs was brought in to be the #1 back. That's why we traded a 2nd round pick and a future 1st rounder for him. Problem is, he got hurt and missed most of his first season. Meanwhile, Earnest Byner, who we gave up Mike Olyphant for, secured the #1 job.

The primary driver for the Duckett trade was Portis' injury. That was obvious from the timing and what we paid for him.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

Hey Long shot- I've read alot of posts so I know I'm going to have to work on this one. (Insert smiley here)

I'll take that as the compliment it is.

From past posts I know you usually argue- Gibbs has total control and the buck stops with him. I disagree- and believe Snyder has quite of bit of influence. How much... who knows? But, I don't think Gibbs has total control in the sense that he has to put up with a meddling owner.

I don't think Snyder is any more meddlesome under Gibbs than Jack Kent Cooke was. Cooke wasn't exactly a passive owner, often getting involved with disagreements between Bethard and Gibbs and often getting involved with player negotiations.

Does Snyder have some influence? Sure. What owner doesn't? How involved is he? He probably sits in meetings, he definitely does some contract negotiations, and he puts his two cents about players.

But, is he undercutting Gibbs' authority? I see no proof of that. You are probably going to bring up Briggs, but I don't think that all happened in a vaccumn. It wouldn't surprise me at all in talking about available players that there was some interest in Briggs if he became available, and when Snyder heard that he might be, he got everyone together to see if they could make it happen. The deal wouldn't have been offered to the Bears if Gibbs didn't sign off on it.

My position against a parlimentry approach to decision making is based on my opinion that I would rather have a HOF coach make the final call with as little interference as possible from Snyder. If we bring in a GM, this will increase Snyder's role.

I don't think Snyder's role is all that large as it is. From what I can see from JLC's season-ending report is that the people who have the largest say is the coaches. The only time Snyder is mentioned is when they are talking about money. Considering he's the owner, that makes sense.

In terms of Cerrato's value- you mention that Gibbs seems to be happy with him. The gray area with this assumption is huge. Gibbs may very well be happy with him. Considering Cerrato and Snyder seems to be friends, Gibbs may not be happy with him at all, but politically it may be difficult to demand his dismissal. Or, maybe Gibbs total control doesn't quite reach the personnel staff. If you made me guess... I would say Gibbs doesn't like him, but knows he would be stepping in a hornets nest with Snyder, so the next step would be to try minimalize Carrato's input by bringing additional staff in to oversee evaluations. Regardless, Gibbs is a leader, and as leader, he will always accept blame for the organization, and try to do his best to fix what he can fix.

If Gibbs truly didn't like him, he would have made a great scapegoat for a 5-11 season, and no one here would have argued otherwise. The fact that he's still here tells me that he's more or less happy with the scouting and that most of the responsibility lies with Gibbs and his staff.

Jason

[chiplohmillers#1]

I just dont see where Cerratto has influenced any decision. He seems that he agrees with everyone its like hes a corporate version of Flavor Flav. He hypes up the decision that gibbs made. You have to get a solid football mind that is intune with todays game. If we took the Delorean back to the 80s the I would say Gibbs is the right man to influence the players he wants.

Right now I just dont see it. And the record reflects that.

[Hooper]

I still can't believe we gave up a 3rd and a 4th for Brandon Lloyd, a guy the 49ers didn't want anything to do with because of his terrible attitude and even worse route-running. Sure, the upside is there but you don't trade away two fairly high picks for a guy everyone in the league (except our scouts apparently) had written off as a punk. And then to top it off we gave him a huge contract before he played a down in the Burgundy & Gold. And guess what? He routinely ran the wrong routes and had a terrible attitude (even CP hated him and that guy loves everybody).

The FO structure we have... well, it could work, but I think Cerrato has to go. We need a more independent voice -- one who isn't going to be simply a yes man. And preferably one with a much better track record.

[turbodiesel#44]

If Gibbs truly didn't like him, he would have made a great scapegoat for a 5-11 season, and no one here would have argued otherwise.

Jason

No, sorry, Gibbs has never made anyone a scapegoat. Ever. It's not in his character.

But I think Gibbs does write the checks. Danny just signs them.

[BAFGA]

First of all

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You have got to be kidding me. We havent made any sort of sound decision since 1999. And since then we have one play off appearance. Our front office might be the second worst in the league (following the Bills). Lloyd, Sanders, Carrier, Archuletta, Spurrier, Jeff George, Tony Banks, Trung Candidate.

Now with the players we lost.

Antonio Pierce, Champ Bailey, Trent Green, Stephen Davis.

Granted they have a couple nice moves. Drafting Chris Cooley was a good move, letting Daryl Gardner go was a good move. But overall they have been garbage.

With Bailey we gained Portis. I'm not buying this Champ Bailey "shut down corner" talk, IMHO. I would call that trade even.

The Banks acquisition was done under Marty, and he was the only one out there on the market with any experience. We needed someone in here and with the release of Jeff George he filled in adequately. I wouldn't call that a panic move or a bad move. I'd call it a move out of necessity.

The jury is still out on Lloyd. Don't put him on the list yet until he's released or regresses even more.

As long as Matt Millen is employed in someones front office, that front office will always be the worst in the league. Come on man.... :doh:

[Beer is Food]

I think you need a history lesson. Riggs was brought in to be the #1 back. That's why we traded a 2nd round pick and a future 1st rounder for him. Problem is, he got hurt and missed most of his first season. Meanwhile, Earnest Byner, who we gave up Mike Olyphant for, secured the #1 job.

The primary driver for the Duckett trade was Portis' injury. That was obvious from the timing and what we paid for him.

Jason

I need a lot things... a history lesson is far down in priority. I think I did over step a bit. I’ll even admit the primary reason for Duckett may have been insurance for Portis. Still- there is a reason Gibbs targeted Duckett. Duckett was a monster in short yardage, and I think the skins had and still do need a short yardage back. When Gibbs brought in Duckett, I had images of Portis- Duckett 1-2 punch, much like the Byner and Riggs.

Regardless, it’s off topic… I don’t think bringing in a GM is necessary. And, having an aggressive approach to player acquisition is the correct strategy.

[Hooper]

I'm not sure Duckett was ever a "monster short yardage back." He looks the part, but he hits the hole too slow.

[chiplohmillers#1]

With Bailey we gained Portis. I'm not buying this Champ Bailey "shut down corner" talk, IMHO. I would call that trade even.

The Banks acquisition was done under Marty, and he was the only one out there on the market with any experience. We needed someone in here and with the release of Jeff George he filled in adequately. I wouldn't call that a panic move or a bad move. I'd call it a move out of necessity.

The jury is still out on Lloyd. Don't put him on the list yet until he's released or regresses even more.

As long as Matt Millen is employed in someones front office, that front office will always be the worst in the league. Come on man.... :doh:

Except for the fact that we also gave up a 2nd rounder along with Bailey. And yes Champ is the most dominant CB in the league right now. Not to Bash portis but Champ was that good.

[Beer is Food]

I'll take that as the compliment it is.

I don't think Snyder is any more meddlesome under Gibbs than Jack Kent Cooke was. Cooke wasn't exactly a passive owner, often getting involved with disagreements between Bethard and Gibbs an often getting involved with player negotiations.

Does Snyder have some influence? Sure. What owner doesn't? How involved is he? He probably sits in meetings, he definitely does some contract negotiations, and he puts his two cents about players.

But, is he undercutting Gibbs' authority? I see no proof of that. You are probably going to bring up Briggs, but I don't think that all happened in a vaccumn. It wouldn't surprise me at all in talking about available players that there was some interest in Briggs if he became available, and when Snyder heard that he might be, he got everyone together to see if they could make it happen. The deal wouldn't have been offered to the Bears if Gibbs didn't sign off on it.

I don't think Snyder's role is all that large as it is. From what I can see from JLC's season-ending report is that the people who have the largest say is the coaches. The only time Snyder is mentioned is when they are talking about money. Considering he's the owner, that makes sense.

If Gibbs truly didn't like him, he would have made a great scapegoat for a 5-11 season, and no one here would have argued otherwise. The fact that he's still here tells me that he's more or less happy with the scouting and that most of the responsibility lies with Gibbs and his staff.

Jason

Jeez… I threw you bone, don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back with it. (Smiley face here)

As I mentioned before, we disagree about how much influence Snyder has over Gibbs “Total Control.” And, I do like bringing up the Briggs trade because with that almost transaction, we the fans, got a rare glimpse at Snyder’s meddling. And, if Gibbs didn’t make the offer to Chicago, then Gibbs publicly would be calling the owner, his boss, an idiot. That’s pressure.

And, as TurboDiesel mentioned- it is not in Gibbs nature to use a scapegoat. If Gibbs really had total control and didn’t approve of Cerrato, he would let him go in a respectful manner.

[Beer is Food]

I just dont see where Cerratto has influenced any decision. He seems that he agrees with everyone its like hes a corporate version of Flavor Flav. He hypes up the decision that gibbs made. You have to get a solid football mind that is intune with todays game. If we took the Delorean back to the 80s the I would say Gibbs is the right man to influence the players he wants.

Right now I just dont see it. And the record reflects that.

Dah nah nah nah na nah nahhh -- YES MAN, YES MAN, yes man....

I agree he is a yes man- who may travel around to fight crime with his Boy Owner- Snyder.

As far as player aquisition, Cerrato plays the biggest and most important role. It's his staff that evaluates talent and value.

[TheLongshot]

I still can't believe we gave up a 3rd and a 4th for Brandon Lloyd, a guy the 49ers didn't want anything to do with because of his terrible attitude and even worse route-running. Sure, the upside is there but you don't trade away two fairly high picks for a guy everyone in the league (except our scouts apparently) had written off as a punk. And then to top it off we gave him a huge contract before he played a down in the Burgundy & Gold. And guess what? He routinely ran the wrong routes and had a terrible attitude (even CP hated him and that guy loves everybody).

You are making some assumptions here. First, that everyone in the league had written him off and that no one wanted him but us. You rarely hear about the deals that were rejected. As for the contract, we gave a similar one to Moss and you don't see many balking on that one. Personally, if we are going to trade for a guy, I want to see a long-term commitment to the guy. I don't want to trade a couple of picks and see the guy walk the next year like Duckett did.

What evidence do you have that Lloyd "routinely run the wrong routes"? I haven't seen any quotes to that effect. Certainly he had some attitude problems, but you might be able to nitpick any of those from a frustrated 5-11 team.

As for Portis, I wouldn't describe his comments as "hate", more frustration. He's also said that he really likes Lloyd's talent.

No, sorry, Gibbs has never made anyone a scapegoat. Ever. It's not in his character.

Yeah, I probably used the wrong words there. Let me just say that Gibbs isn't afraid to make a change when he feels it is needed. He was the one who brought in Saunders and let go Lindsey.

Jason

[Beer is Food]

I'm not sure Duckett was ever a "monster short yardage back." He looks the part, but he hits the hole too slow.

You can say that again. He wasn't good enough to make it on the field... but according to Cerrato- he graded pretty high- or we wouldn't of traded for him.

[TheLongshot]

Jeez… I threw you bone, don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. (Smiley face here)

As I mentioned before, we disagree about how much influence Snyder has over Gibbs “Total Control.” And, I do like bringing up the Briggs trade because with that almost transaction, we the fans, got a rare glimpse at Snyder’s meddling. And, if Gibbs didn’t make the offer to Chicago, then Gibbs publicly would be calling the owner, his boss, and idiot. That’s pressure.

As far as meddling goes, that's pretty darn mild. He had a conversation with an agent, which he's good friends with, who told him that one of his players could be had at a certain price. He liked what he heard, got his personnel guy over there and talked to him about it, and they took it to Gibbs. Only then was a formal offer made to the Bears.

True meddling would probably have Snyder getting Chicago on the phone and making the deal without Gibbs' input.

Jason

[Beer is Food]

As far as meddling goes, that's pretty darn mild. He had a conversation with an agent, which he's good friends with, who told him that one of his players could be had at a certain price. He liked what he heard, got his personnel guy over there and talked to him about it, and they took it to Gibbs. Only then was a formal offer made to the Bears.

True meddling would probably have Snyder getting Chicago on the phone and making the deal without Gibbs' input.

Jason

I guess it's not as bad as bringing in TO. But, at least in that situation King Cowboy has admited his role as GM/Owner.

And, I commend you for admitting the flaws in the Briggs transaction. I only commend you that is because you painted the chain of events in such a delicate manner using the best possible light. More to the point, Snyder spoke with the agent and player, worked out framework of the contract, agreed in principle to the value of the trade, agreed to allow the media to report the incident, and only then, as an after thought, did Ceratto remind Snyder that they need to run it by Gibbs.

No wonder the media and fans question the chain of command and blame Snyder. Do you really think Gibbs has "total control"?

[Hooper]

You are making some assumptions here. First, that everyone in the league had written him off and that no one wanted him but us. You rarely hear about the deals that were rejected. As for the contract, we gave a similar one to Moss and you don't see many balking on that one. Personally, if we are going to trade for a guy, I want to see a long-term commitment to the guy. I don't want to trade a couple of picks and see the guy walk the next year like Duckett did.

What evidence do you have that Lloyd "routinely run the wrong routes"? I haven't seen any quotes to that effect.

Jason

Moss' contract was seen as somewhat of a risk because of his history of missing games due to injury. But, unlike Lloyd, he had shown when healthy he was a number one receiver on the field and a great guy off of it. Comparing Moss to Lloyd is just absurd. No one pays like the Danny -- if Lloyd had kicked butt the first couple games, they could have easily locked him up. Instead they paid him like a number 1A receiver before he even came close to proving it on the field. Hell, last year he didn't even look like a decent 3.

Both JLC and John Keim (the most objective, unbiased skins reporter around IMO) have written that Lloyd routinely ran the wrong routes and lost the trust of Saunders by season's end. And that if it wasn't for the cap hit they would take on top of AA's, he probably would have been cut.

[TheLongshot]

I guess it's not as bad as bringing in TO. But, at least in that situation King Cowboy has admited his role as GM/Owner.

What out there has suggested that Snyder is acting as GM for this team? The only powers he reserves for himself are the hiring and firing of the head coach (which may or may not change after Gibbs) and negotiating some of the big contracts. The only time Snyder seemed to be picking players for this team was in 2000. Since then, the decisions seem to have primarily been by other people.

And, I commend you for admitting the flaws in the Briggs transaction. I only commend you that is because you painted the chain of events in such a delicate manner using the best possible light. More to the point, Snyder spoke with the agent and player, worked out framework of the contract, agreed in principle to the value of the trade, agreed to allow the media to report the incident, and only then, as an after thought, did Ceratto remind Snyder that they need to run it by Gibbs.

And you decide to put a negative spin on the whole thing.

Fact is, Vinny probably knows what players Gibbs and company have an interest in, and probably has known since before FA started. So, I do think the Skins had a genuine interest in Briggs, for the right price. Considering that it was pretty obvious that they weren't that high on the #6 pick, the trade made a certain amount of sense in that they'd be getting a bonafide pro-bowler for their pick.

As for the value of the trade, Rosenhaus certainly didn't speak for the Bears organization. The only questionable thing in all of this was the statement to the press, but for all I know, that could have been designed to spur trade talks about the first round pick.

Do you really think Gibbs has "total control"?

Sure do. He made the call to make the formal offer.

Jason

[Hooper]

The Briggs thing... well, thank God the bears GM didn't want to get forced into a deal. Because based on minicamp reports, it sounds like Rocky could be a real solid player.

[TheLongshot]

Moss' contract was seen as somewhat of a risk because of his history of missing games due to injury. But, unlike Lloyd, he had shown when healthy he was a number one receiver on the field and a great guy off of it.

Yeah, so much so that Moss was going to be demoted to third string.

Let's be real here: Both guys were question marks when brought in. None of us knew how well either would do.

Comparing Moss to Lloyd is just absurd. No one pays like the Danny -- if Lloyd had kicked butt the first couple games, they could have easily locked him up. Instead they paid him like a number 1A receiver before he even came close to proving it on the field. Hell, last year he didn't even look like a decent 3.

If Lloyd had kicked butt in the first couple of games, he could have very well waited till FA to get a new contract, especially since he asked for one when we traded for him. I think the new contract was needed.

And the fact is, none of our receivers looked good last year. That's probably because the QBing was pretty subpar all year long.

Both JLC and John Keim (the most objective, unbiased skins reporter around IMO) have written that Lloyd routinely ran the wrong routes and lost the trust of Saunders by season's end. And that if it wasn't for the cap hit they would take on top of AA's, he probably would have been cut.

I haven't found an article by either that said that Lloyd routinely ran the wrong routes. I have read that some coaches thought his route running was a bit weak, but that's all I've seen. I also haven't seen anything that says that he lost the trust of Saunders either. Certainly, he was demoted, but the exact reasons weren't ever disclosed. It could have been punishment for throwing his helmet. It could have been because they felt at that time that Randle El would have been more productive.

And JLC has said in chat that he doesn't think that Lloyd would have been cut if his deal was more cap friendly, if just from what the team has invested in him.

Anyways, this is way off topic so I should cut this off. I think his production, as well as the production of the passing game, is going to be very much dependent on Campbell. If Campbell can get more consistent with his passes, all the receivers will look better.

Jason