SKINS FAN #56 Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 If you look at old videos, players used to be HUGE! They were like cavemen lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNAVY28 Posted September 29, 2007 Author Share Posted September 29, 2007 :applause: :laugh: :applause: :laugh: :applause: :notworthy :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clemenza1112 Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 You know what at least Snyder went out and spent his money and tried to make the team better, unlike other teams yeah it didn't work out you can't win a Super Bowl every year but you try to builted the right team, and thats what he tried to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 I think the moves we made in 2000 just upset the delicate balance of the locker room, the team chemistry, etc. I think we established something of an identity as a team in '99 for the first time since Gibbs I, and that identity was squashed by wholesale changes to bring in 35+ year-old vets. Even Vinny C. later admitted that it was a mistake to bring in such aging vets. That's why most of the free agents we've gone after in the years since have been entering their prime rather than exiting their prime. A solid coaching staff should be able to maintain a locker room. If the balance is that delicate, something's wrong. The majority of the teams in the NFL bring in 5 - 7 guys every year. In 2006 our defense sucked. Changes were made. In 1999, our defense sucked, changes were made. Even though hindsight, the people that made the decisions to bring those players in in 2000, now admit that some of those moves were mistakes due to the age of those players, they still were successful moves for that season. Going from 29th to 4th in one year is pretty good. The offense wasn't touched other than a couple of depth players and drafting Chris Samuels, but scored 17 less TD's in 2000. The people that picked us to win the Superbowl that year did so in anticipation that the defense would improve because of our additions on defense and that the offense would continue it's effectiveness. - The latter didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madden lot Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Did anybody actually like signing Sanders to that huge contractYes, i did, but that scott bunnel contract is what still bothers me, 20yrs. 100m. I think it was something like that, o yeah and a 1st round draft pick P.S. I mean this is why the guy is still here rite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Yes, i did, but that scott bunnel contract is what still bothers me, 20yrs. 100m. I think it was something like that, o yeah and a 1st round draft pickP.S. I mean this is why the guy is still here rite? What? Think your confused on a number of things there chief.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RammsteinSkins Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 What? Think your confused on a number of things there chief..........does anyone remember why brunell was benched in jacksonville in 03?last time i checked his stats were pretty good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxskinsville Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 does anyone remember why brunell was benched in jacksonville in 03?last time i checked his stats were pretty good Yeah, stats were okay but the new sheriff in town (Del Rio) signaled a new era by wanting to bring in a new deputy (Lesswith) and the Jags were in bad cap room. Besides, Brunell had already begun to show signs of wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.