Portis, Moss, Campbell, Cooley--A Look Back

[Larry Brown #43]

Jason is a good athlete, so Zorn had that to work with. But, he took a QB who seemed best suited for a deep-throwing vertical offense, the kind he was drafted to run, and made him tighter, quicker and more accurate. I doubt that's ever been done before.

I think it's a combination of Campbell's natural progression as a professional and Zorn's coaching. The best QB instructor in the world can't turn a bad QB into a good one. He can make a good one better.

As for the previous trades, I don't agree with you. After the 2006 season, Gibbs abandoned his plan to trade up in the draft, trade picks for vets, and invest heavily in free agency. He abandoned it because it wasn't paying off. Now, you are using recent events to trump up an argument for the success of those policies.

All I'm saying is, now that more time has passed and we have more of a representative sample with which to judge the trades, I'd make the Portis deal again. I'd make the Moss deal again. And I'd make the Campbell deal again.

That's fine if you disagree, and it's fine if you would undo those trades if you had the chance. We just disagree. If we all agreed on everything, ES would be a pretty boring place.

[Larry Brown #43]

Okay, and they were 1-5. What does that tell you?

We won our last four (4-0) regular season games without Rogers. Without McIntosh. Without Taylor. And basically without a healthy Marcus Washington. Where are you getting 1-5 from?

[Larry Brown #43]

From ESPN.com -- Dec. 30, 2007

"The Redskins entered Week 17 with five starters on season-ending reserve lists and a sixth, Sean Taylor, having met a tragic demise. Five other teams entered the weekend with more than five starters lost for the season to injury. None earned playoff spots.

The Redskins played the final three weeks without their injured starting quarterback. They won all three games. Jason Campbell is probably done for the season. That's notable, because the five teams with starting quarterbacks on injured reserve missed the playoffs.

Six teams placed two starting offensive linemen on season-ending reserve lists this season, but only one -- Washington, of course -- is heading to the playoffs."

[Shilsu]

We won our last four (4-0) regular season games without Rogers. Without McIntosh. Without Taylor. And basically without a healthy Marcus Washington. Where are you getting 1-5 from?

1-5 is what our record was before Todd Collins. 4-0 is what our record was after Todd Collins.

Unless you're telling me that we became a better team because we played without Rogers and Taylor. McIntosh got injured in the middle of the streak, and healthy or not, Marcus Washington started the last four games.

Is that what you're trying to say? We are a better team without Carlos Rogers and Sean Taylor in the lineup?

[Shilsu]

From ESPN.com -- Dec. 30, 2007

"The Redskins entered Week 17 with five starters on season-ending reserve lists and a sixth, Sean Taylor, having met a tragic demise. Five other teams entered the weekend with more than five starters lost for the season to injury. None earned playoff spots.

The Redskins played the final three weeks without their injured starting quarterback. They won all three games. Jason Campbell is probably done for the season. That's notable, because the five teams with starting quarterbacks on injured reserve missed the playoffs.

Six teams placed two starting offensive linemen on season-ending reserve lists this season, but only one -- Washington, of course -- is heading to the playoffs."

And only one team had their backup quarterback outperform the starter by about 30 points. Care to guess which team that was?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

So your insinuating that we won 4 straight because of our defensive depth and not Todd Collins is pretty insulting considering that same defensive "depth" went 1-5. Are you saying we actually added by subtraction in that having Rocky McIntosh injured actually enabled to us to win four straight? That can't be right either, considering he was injured in the Giants game.

This has been said before, but it was Shawn Springs' INT in the Chicago game that spurred the team to a win moreso than Collins' play. Up until then, Collins was mediocre at best. He doesn't get that same opportunity to throw a TD pass to Yoder right before the half without Springs INT and return to the Bears' 20 yard line. His first three pass attempts resulted in an incompletion, a 4 yard completion, and a fumble. His one decent completion before the 4th quarter was a 54 yarder to Portis that was thrown to him at the line of scrimmage. In other words, Portis had 54 yards after the catch on that play. Brunell does that same throw and everyone ridicules how "anyone could make that throw".

The reality is that Springs had zero INTs in the first 12 games and 4 INTs in the last four when Collins took over. Smoot had zero INTs and 3 pass defenses in the first 12 games and 1 INT and 7 pass defenses in the last four games when Collins took over. A lot of guys on defense stepped up their games after Sean Taylor's death, and it most definitely played an important role in the Skins' 4-0 run. If they had played at the same level against the Eagles and Cowboys when Jason Campbell threw for a combined 563 yards, 5 TDs and only 1 INT, we would have won both of those games and been 7-5 at the time of his injury instead of 5-7.

[Larry Brown #43]

Unless you're telling me that we became a better team because we played without Rogers and Taylor. McIntosh got injured in the middle of the streak, and healthy or not, Marcus Washington started the last four games.

Is that what you're trying to say? We are a better team without Carlos Rogers and Sean Taylor in the lineup?

Nope. Not saying we're better without them at all. Just saying that their backups performed well when pressed into duty.

[Shilsu]

This has been said before, but it was Shawn Springs' INT in the Chicago game that spurred the team to a win moreso than Collins' play. Up until then, Collins was mediocre at best. He doesn't get that same opportunity to throw a TD pass to Yoder right before the half without Springs INT and return to the Bears' 20 yard line. His first three pass attempts resulted in an incompletion, a 4 yard completion, and a fumble. His one decent completion before the 4th quarter was a 54 yarder to Portis that was thrown to him at the line of scrimmage. In other words, Portis had 54 yards after the catch on that play. Brunell does that same throw and everyone ridicules how "anyone could make that throw".

The reality is that Springs had zero INTs in the first 12 games and 4 INTs in the last four when Collins took over. Smoot had zero INTs and 3 pass defenses in the first 12 games and 1 INT and 7 pass defenses in the last four games when Collins took over. A lot of guys on defense stepped up their games after Sean Taylor's death, and it most definitely played an important role in the Skins' 4-0 run. If they had played at the same level against the Eagles and Cowboys when Jason Campbell threw for a combined 563 yards, 5 TDs and only 1 INT, we would have won both of those games and been 7-5 at the time of his injury instead of 5-7.

This is pretty much where I expect some parrot to come in and say, "How dare you present such logic!"

So let me get this straight. Shawn Springs' INT has more of an impact on the game than a Todd Collins TD pass? We won by more than 7 points, so that's definitely not it.

Meanwhile, here's a reason that the cornerbacks might've looked better versus the Bears than they did versus the Eagles and Cowboys.

Cowboys Offense. #3.

Eagles Offense. #6.

Chicago Bears Offense. #27.

And it was the backup QB we were facing.

I guess we truly do expect our team to play up and down to our opponents.

[Shilsu]

Nope. Not saying we're better without them at all. Just saying that their backups performed well when pressed into duty.

Yes, so well that when we finally faced a real offense, we got shredded by the Seattle Seahawks.

[Larry Brown #43]

Yes, so well that when we finally faced a real offense, we got shredded by the Seattle Seahawks.

Not a big fan of the Super Bowl Champs' offense? Hmm. I wonder what the Patriots would say about that.

If our depth were as bad as you claim it is, do you really think that Todd Freaking Collins could single-handedly overcome all the injuries we had at key positions? I mean, if our depth were so bad, we simply couldn't score enough points to keep up with the onslaught our opponents were laying on our backups, right?

Bottom line for me is, if you want to say Collins was the sole reason we went 4-0 and our backups at the various other positions had nothing to do with it, you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But you'd be in the minority with that opinion.

[Shilsu]

Not a big fan of the Super Bowl Champs' offense? Hmm. I wonder what the Patriots would say about that.

So now you're telling me the Giants won the Super Bowl because of their offense? Where else did I hear this idiotic mantra about how the Giants had an "explosive offense" before...

News flash, the Giants had a worse offense than we did.

If our depth were as bad as you claim it is, do you really think that Todd Freaking Collins could single-handedly overcome all the injuries we had at key positions? I mean, if our depth were so bad, we simply couldn't score enough points to keep up with the onslaught our opponents were laying on our backups, right?

Bottom line for me is, if you want to say Collins was the sole reason we went 4-0 and our backups at the various other positions had nothing to do with it, you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But you'd be in the minority with that opinion.

You keep evading the issue. If the depth was so great, why weren't they producing wins BEFORE Todd Collins?

[chipwhich]

Of course the problem with the concept of this thread is you take the good and leave out the bad. Archuletta, Lloyd, TJ Duckett, Brunell, Picks Picks Picks. So we took a shotgun approach, some panned out, some didn't.

All the moves were controversial. Not all of them panned out.

Meanwhile we are still extremely thin at offensive line, corner, and we can't buy a defensive lineman who can sniff the QB's jock.

Revisit this thread after these guys actually do something to remember...I don't want Redskins records, I want championships.

[TheLongshot]

Gibbs was smart enough to know what he had in Ramsey, but he refused to trade him when the Dolphins were offering a #1 draft pick or Ogunleye, a DE we sorely could've used. Okay.

Yeah, he should have known that Ramsey was a bum a couple of months into the job, especially with Ramsey recovering from a broken foot. :doh:

BTW, the comment from you about depth, to have good depth, you need to have starters first. It wasn't until 2007 that I could really say that we had a good core of starters. Until then, it is hard to build depth because you are still filling the holes.

There are some that are upset about the lack of contributions from the current draft class, but most of that was to be depth anyways, guys who will contribute down the road.

The depth of this team is really showing. When a veteran player goes down, there is a young guy who is able to fill in. We've been able to do that the past couple of years and this year's draft class will add to that eventually.

Jason

[chipwhich]

There are some that are upset about the lack of contributions from the current draft class, but most of that was to be depth anyways, guys who will contribute down the road.

Jason

No, I am pretty sure they expected to get a starting wide receiver.

Of Thrash, El, and Moss...only Moss might be considered a number 1 receiver, and that depends on the season he plays in. This season it looks good. Can't say that about every season he has been here.

[[[ghost]]]

Despite your condescension, you never managed to define the term "franchise QB."

Except, he kind of did.

Maybe my definition doesn't match yours but when you have one guy at the QB position that performs above average for most of his career, that's a Franchise QB.

Once again, Swing and a Miss by Oldfan.

Wasting your breath on Oldfan, I'm afraid. He's the classic definition of a cynic - knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

It always cracks me up when people combine a complete lack of insider knowledge with a complete lack of relevant business experience and make statements of absolute certitude when, in reality, they're just pulling stuff out of the wazoo.

Its a shame really. It wouldn't be the first time he's done it.

[Shilsu]

Yeah, he should have known that Ramsey was a bum a couple of months into the job, especially with Ramsey recovering from a broken foot. :doh:

Yet he had sufficient knowledge to trade a third rounder for Mark Brunell and give him a monster contract? :doh:

BTW, the comment from you about depth, to have good depth, you need to have starters first. It wasn't until 2007 that I could really say that we had a good core of starters. Until then, it is hard to build depth because you are still filling the holes.

Or maybe it's because we were trading draft picks and signing big contracts for the likes of Adam Archuleta, Mark Brunell, Brandon Lloyd, TJ Duckett. Or just wasting them by focusing on depth at the wrong positions like Nemo Broughton and Manuel White.

There are some that are upset about the lack of contributions from the current draft class, but most of that was to be depth anyways, guys who will contribute down the road.

The depth of this team is really showing. When a veteran player goes down, there is a young guy who is able to fill in. We've been able to do that the past couple of years and this year's draft class will add to that eventually.

Jason

That sure worked well in 2006 and 2007. The depth on our line was so great that Clinton Portis averaged less than 4 yards per carry. The depth on our defensive line was so great it became horrible when Cornelius Griffin went down. The depth on our defensive line was so great that when Phillip Daniels went down, we traded draft picks for Jason Taylor.

[Larry Brown #43]

So now you're telling me the Giants won the Super Bowl because of their offense? Where else did I hear this idiotic mantra about how the Giants had an "explosive offense" before...

News flash, the Giants had a worse offense than we did.

They scored 35 points the last regular season game against the Patriots. They scored 38 points the week before that at Buffalo.

The week before that? We held them to 10 points in their house in December. I guess Collins deserves a pat on the back for that.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

No, I am pretty sure they expected to get a starting wide receiver.

Of Thrash, El, and Moss...only Moss might be considered a number 1 receiver, and that depends on the season he plays in. This season it looks good. Can't say that about every season he has been here.

They were pretty vocal about not needing any of the 2nd round receivers to step into a starting role, even after the draft. Both Zorn and Vinny said repeatedly that they were "set" at the starting positions. They probably hoped either Thomas or Kelly would supplant Thrash as the #3 sometime this season, but other than that there wasn't any immediate need to have them start unless they just flat-out impressed the hell out of everyone during training camp.

[TheLongshot]

Of course the problem with the concept of this thread is you take the good and leave out the bad. Archuletta, Lloyd, TJ Duckett, Brunell, Picks Picks Picks. So we took a shotgun approach, some panned out, some didn't.

All the moves were controversial. Not all of them panned out.

Most of the bad there can be focused on one year: 2006. There were a lot of bad decisions made that year, and the team learned from that.

Meanwhile we are still extremely thin at offensive line, corner, and we can't buy a defensive lineman who can sniff the QB's jock.

I don't know what you are smoking about the O-Line. We've come a long way from having to start a 40 year old guard at RT and having to press a mediocre center in at guard. Hell, we lost two starters last year and we were still able to function reasonably well.

Jason

[Shilsu]

They scored 35 points the last regular season game against the Patriots. They scored 38 points the week before that at Buffalo.

The week before that? We held them to 10 points in their house in December. I guess Collins deserves a pat on the back for that.

The Buffalo Bills had the 31st ranked defense. I'm so glad you think the Giants are so great because they scored so many points versus them.

The Bears scored 35 and 37 in their last two games. I suppose you consider them an explosive offense, too.

[chipwhich]

They were pretty vocal about not needing any of the 2nd round receivers to step into a starting role, even after the draft. Both Zorn and Vinny said repeatedly that they were "set" at the starting positions. They probably hoped either Thomas or Kelly would supplant Thrash as the #3 sometime this season, but other than that there wasn't any immediate need to have them start unless they just flat-out impressed the hell out of everyone during training camp.

Well if they really believed that they were silly.

At BEST, and I mean when Santana is at his BEST. Moss is a 1. Thrash/Randel El are 3 or 4 receivers. Moss sometimes plays like a 2 reciever. I think they know that trio needed another 2 or 3 to put in the mix. Nobody is fearing El or Thrash.

[Larry Brown #43]

The Buffalo Bills had the 31st ranked defense. I'm so glad you think the Giants are so great because they scored so many points versus them.

The Bears scored 35 and 37 in their last two games. I suppose you consider them an explosive offense, too.

So the 35 they dropped on the Patriots the week after we held them to 10...I can see why you chose not to address that.

[chipwhich]

Most of the bad there can be focused on one year: 2006. There were a lot of bad decisions made that year, and the team learned from that.

I don't know what you are smoking about the O-Line. We've come a long way from having to start a 40 year old guard at RT and having to press a mediocre center in at guard. Hell, we lost two starters last year and we were still able to function reasonably well.

Jason

Did you see the pressure the LIONS put on Campbell yesterday? Heyer is a good olineman, but to somehow not think we are thin on the oline means you are wearing blindfolds.

Plus our line is old.

[Shilsu]

So the 35 they dropped on the Patriots the week after we held them to 10...I can see why you chose not to address that.

Okay buddy. The fact they scored 35 and lost in that one game versus the Patriots nullifies the fact that their offense was poor for the rest of the season and the fact they only scored 17 and won in the Super Bowl. Good job.

First you want to attribute our playoff run to the depth on our defense and now you want to prove the Giants had a great offense last yera. :doh:

[PrimetimeHero]

This thread was a terrific read. It seems Joe was building for the future, which is great. If these guys keep this up, we can get a few championships and they could possibly be HOF players. This team is special. They find a way to win and these guys are at the core.

As long as we're winning....