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

[Larry Brown #43]

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:

Look, I never claimed that the Giants were an explosive offense. But they certainly were a credible offense. Bottom line, we held them to 10 points in their building in a critical December game.

And we did it with backups playing significant minutes at several positions.

I'm just saying, if our depth were as poor as you claim it to be, the Giants certainly had a competent enough offense to tear us to shreds. They didn't do it. Props to Todd Collins for that.

By the way...saying they 'only' scored 17 in the Super Bowl is pretty funny. How many points did we score on the Patriots last year?

[chipwhich]

Look, I never claimed that the Giants were an explosive offense. But they certainly were a credible offense. Bottom line, we held them to 10 points in their building in a critical December game.

Their offense was middle of the pack. Right in the middle. Credible??? They played well when it mattered.

[Larry Brown #43]

Their offense was middle of the pack. Right in the middle. Credible??? They played well when it mattered.

And our backups played well enough to hold them to 10 points in the game--a week before the Giants scored 35 against the mighty Patriots.

Why is this so complicated? Our backups played well. They're not as good as our starters--if they were, they'd BE starters. But they filled in admirably. Geez, you'd think I was trying to argue that Jason Campbell is the greatest QB in NFL history or something.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Well if they really believed that they were silly.

No, I think the ones who were "silly" were all the fans who started threads like "Will Santana and ARE be here next year?" a week after the draft. There was some pretty moronic conventional wisdom floating around ES at the time that both Thomas and Kelly were "easily" gonna outperform our starting receivers and show them to be both overrated and unnecessary. I actually think that this mentality is one reason why some fans are ready to yell "Bust!" at the top of their lungs when it comes to Thomas and Kelly, because they thought both were drafted to become starters right away, even if the Skins' FO did not.

Last year we were signing the likes of Reche Caldwell off the street and begging McCardell to come out of retirement just to be able to field enough receivers on any given week. That, in my eyes, is why both Kelly and Thomas were drafted...to provide quality depth that hopefully could perform well enough now and eventually take over starting positions in the future.

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.

If nobody is fearing El, that might explain how he's able to convert so many of his passes into 1st downs. He lead the team last year in terms of percentage of receptions for 1st downs. He's not a possession receiver, obviously, and I also think that's what Vinny and Zorn were hoping to find with at least Kelly. But they also knew they could work with what they had until both got caught up to NFL speed. But that still doesn't translate into "they were drafted to replace the starters right now".

[chipwhich]

And our backups played well enough to hold them to 10 points in the game--a week before the Giants scored 35 against the mighty Patriots.

Why is this so complicated? Our backups played well. They're not as good as our starters--if they were, they'd BE starters. But they filled in admirably. Geez, you'd think I was trying to argue that Jason Campbell is the greatest QB in NFL history or something.

It was an extremely windy game, and the Giants dropped a ton of passes. It was a big win, but I wouldn't come to many conclusions after that victory.

Giants dropped passed led us to a victory.

[TheLongshot]

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

I don't know, would you feel comfortable with just having a relatively unproven QB coming off a foot injury in Ramsey and a never-was in Hasslebeck? This is a league where you need to have two QBs to survive, we barely had one.

Brunell was a veteran who had won big games in the past. He was a guy who could provide some veteran leadership and be a mentor to Ramsey (and later Campbell). He could also come in and eat some starts if Ramsey needed time to get acclimated to Gibbs offense. He was also insurance if Ramsey didn't work out. I think he needed to play a lot more than what Gibbs really intended him to play, which was to play until a young QB was ready. That took 2.5 years. I also don't think that bringing in Saunders was good for Brunell, who doesn't work to Saunders' strengths.

As for what we spent, it was a lot, but there were few options. Warner probably was the best option of the people who hit the market, and a lot of people thought he was probably done at the time (and he certainly looked done with the Giants.) Jeff Garcia didn't come available until after June 1st. I don't think there was anyone worth a damn. That's the reason why Brunell actually had trade value.

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.

I addressed most of that above. Admittedly, 2006 was a bad year, but that is ignoring the fact that we had three good years in there.

As for the draft, that was addressed when Scott Campbell was named Director of College Scouting in 2006. Suddenly, our drafts improved. It probably also involved a learning curve from Gibbs as well.

BTW, I don't know how you can criticize a 7th round draft pick. Those guys are shots in the dark, and Nemo certainly was a decent pick to take a chance on.

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.

Actually, our backups did work quite well in 2007. Sure, the depth wasn't as good as the starters, but that is the reason why they are backups.

Just as a note, tho, we traded for Taylor because we lost Daniels and Buzbee. You might not have thought much about Buzbee, but the coaching staff was expecting him to be a good reserve for us.

Jason

[chipwhich]

Last year we were signing the likes of Reche Caldwell off the street and begging McCardell to come out of retirement just to be able to field enough receivers on any given week.

If nobody is fearing El, that might explain how he's able to convert so many of his passes into 1st downs.

I think you are making my point.

Randel El and Thrash are at best 3 and 4 receivers.

Moss at best is a number 1.

You don't draft 2 receivers in the second round when you are

a) fielding that trio

based on last year signing any receiver with a pulse to compliment that trio.

I am not saying either receiver would displace Moss or Randel El. They certainly thought one of the two would see the field over Thrash.

[Larry Brown #43]

It was an extremely windy game, and the Giants dropped a ton of passes. It was a big win, but I wouldn't come to many conclusions after that victory.

Giants dropped passed led us to a victory.

I guess the wind died down for them the following week against New England? Oh, and I'm drawing conclusions from the final stretch of games when we were most severely undermanned.

All I'm saying is the backups held up well. I don't think that's an outrageous statement.

[chipwhich]

I guess the wind died down for them the following week against New England? Oh, and I'm drawing conclusions from the final stretch of games when we were most severely undermanned.

All I'm saying is the backups held up well. I don't think that's an outrageous statement.

They held up well, agreed.

[TheLongshot]

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.

Heyer was off for over a month because he was hurt and had to get ready at a moment's notice to start at a position he probably hadn't practiced at since training camp.

Considering the situation, I think he did a decent job.

Jason

[Shilsu]

I don't know, would you feel comfortable with just having a relatively unproven QB coming off a foot injury in Ramsey and a never-was in Hasslebeck? This is a league where you need to have two QBs to survive, we barely had one.

Brunell was a veteran who had won big games in the past. He was a guy who could provide some veteran leadership and be a mentor to Ramsey (and later Campbell). He could also come in and eat some starts if Ramsey needed time to get acclimated to Gibbs offense. He was also insurance if Ramsey didn't work out. I think he needed to play a lot more than what Gibbs really intended him to play, which was to play until a young QB was ready. That took 2.5 years. I also don't think that bringing in Saunders was good for Brunell, who doesn't work to Saunders' strengths.

As for what we spent, it was a lot, but there were few options. Warner probably was the best option of the people who hit the market, and a lot of people thought he was probably done at the time (and he certainly looked done with the Giants.) Jeff Garcia didn't come available until after June 1st. I don't think there was anyone worth a damn. That's the reason why Brunell actually had trade value.

Wrong. No one was going to pick up Brunell and the general consensus was that he was going to be released. Only we offered a draft pick for him. And you don't sign him to that kind of contract if you intend him to just be a "mentor", let alone spend a draft pick.

I suppose according to your logic, since Campbell was relatively unproven and was coming off of an injury, we should've been shopping our picks for a veteran QB, right?

I addressed most of that above. Admittedly, 2006 was a bad year, but that is ignoring the fact that we had three good years in there.

As for the draft, that was addressed when Scott Campbell was named Director of College Scouting in 2006. Suddenly, our drafts improved. It probably also involved a learning curve from Gibbs as well.

BTW, I don't know how you can criticize a 7th round draft pick. Those guys are shots in the dark, and Nemo certainly was a decent pick to take a chance on.

Why would you take a shot at a dark at Nemo Broughton's position? If you owned a Santana Moss jersey and had to choose between playing in a raffle for a Moss or a Portis jersey, would you pick the raffle for the Moss jersey? Well, I guess if you are a really big Moss fan or weren't playing for yourself. But the Redskins couldn't afford to be a big RB/FB/HB fan and they better have been playing for themself.

Actually, our backups did work quite well in 2007. Sure, the depth wasn't as good as the starters, but that is the reason why they are backups.

Let me reiterate.

Clinton Portis rushed for less than 4 yards per carry. That's not quite well.

We were 5-6, 1-5 once Taylor and Rogers went down. That's not quite well.

Just as a note, tho, we traded for Taylor because we lost Daniels and Buzbee. You might not have thought much about Buzbee, but the coaching staff was expecting him to be a good reserve for us.

Jason

So Buzbee is the reason we traded for Taylor now? An UDFA who did not play in any games ever is the reason we traded for Taylor. Wow.

[Shilsu]

Look, I never claimed that the Giants were an explosive offense. But they certainly were a credible offense. Bottom line, we held them to 10 points in their building in a critical December game.

And we did it with backups playing significant minutes at several positions.

I'm just saying, if our depth were as poor as you claim it to be, the Giants certainly had a competent enough offense to tear us to shreds. They didn't do it. Props to Todd Collins for that.

By the way...saying they 'only' scored 17 in the Super Bowl is pretty funny. How many points did we score on the Patriots last year?

Here is what you said on the first page.

"How do we lose Marcus Washington, Rocky McIntosh, Sean Taylor, and Carlos Rogers, and not miss a beat defensively? Because of Todd Collins?

We were the only team in football last year to lose as many players to season-ending injuries as we did and still make the playoffs. Sorry, but that counts for something in my book."

You are insinuating we made the playoffs thanks to our depth, particulary on our defensive side.

Why were we 5-6 before Todd Collins, 1-5 without Rogers and Taylor.

That just shows that no we were not a playoff team based on our depth aside from Todd Collins.

[Mania]

With all the depth that we do have, this past week vs.the Lions proved that we need to draft a stud left tackle to groom to replace or Samuel's if anything is to happen to him.

Samuel's is one of the best LT in the game and we cannot afford to lose him. He is a good pass and run blocker. Heyer, although good depth, is not the long term answer at tackle.

[Larry Brown #43]

Here is what you said on the first page.

"How do we lose Marcus Washington, Rocky McIntosh, Sean Taylor, and Carlos Rogers, and not miss a beat defensively? Because of Todd Collins?

We were the only team in football last year to lose as many players to season-ending injuries as we did and still make the playoffs. Sorry, but that counts for something in my book."

You are insinuating we made the playoffs thanks to our depth, particulary on our defensive side.

Why were we 5-6 before Todd Collins, 1-5 without Rogers and Taylor.

That just shows that no we were not a playoff team based on our depth aside from Todd Collins.

We could go back and forth on this for hours and not convince each other of anything.

What you're saying doesn't show anything. There are any number of factors that can lead to a team getting hot or cold over a given stretch.

Collins played well when he was forced to play. I never said he didn't. But until you can prove to me that Collins had something to do with our defense playing well over the last four weeks of the season, we're not going to get anywhere.

I can't tell you why the play of the defense improved as more and more players got hurt and the season wore on. If I could explain that, I'd probably be making a lot more money than I am right now. But I can tell you that it happened.

[TheLongshot]

Wrong. No one was going to pick up Brunell and the general consensus was that he was going to be released. Only we offered a draft pick for him. And you don't sign him to that kind of contract if you intend him to just be a "mentor", let alone spend a draft pick.

A fiction made up by those who didn't like the trade. There were plenty of rumors that other teams were interested in trading for Brunell.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020704/jag_brunell.shtml

Jaguars coach Jack Del Rio, however said Saturday that the Redskins are one of several teams that called recently about trading for Brunell instead of waiting for Jacksonville to release the 33-year-old former starter next month.

San Diego, Miami and Dallas have joined Washington in discussing a first-day pick with the Jaguars for Brunell, according to a league source who did not want to be named because of NFL tampering rules.

Course, it would logically follow that if a team is trading a pick that high that there are competing offers out there. Course, fans would rather think that the FO were idiots.

I suppose according to your logic, since Campbell was relatively unproven and was coming off of an injury, we should've been shopping our picks for a veteran QB, right?

Uh, no, because we already had a veteran on the roster who had proven his worth with Collins.

Why would you take a shot at a dark at Nemo Broughton's position? If you owned a Santana Moss jersey and had to choose between playing in a raffle for a Moss or a Portis jersey, would you pick the raffle for the Moss jersey? Well, I guess if you are a really big Moss fan or weren't playing for yourself. But the Redskins couldn't afford to be a big RB/FB/HB fan and they better have been playing for themself.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug. I guess I would have to have some to understand what the hell you are talking about.

Let me reiterate.

Clinton Portis rushed for less than 4 yards per carry. That's not quite well.

We were 5-6, 1-5 once Taylor and Rogers went down. That's not quite well.

Is that because of injuries, or is that because of the struggles the team was having offensively with Campbell filling out his first full year?

So Buzbee is the reason we traded for Taylor now? An UDFA who did not play in any games ever is the reason we traded for Taylor. Wow.

Considering what was left was the journeyman Evans, the on-the-mend James, the pass rush specialist Wilson and the raw rookie Jackson to play that side of the field, things were pretty thin. While we could have lived with that, the need was there.

Jason

[Shilsu]

A fiction made up by those who didn't like the trade. There were plenty of rumors that other teams were interested in trading for Brunell.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020704/jag_brunell.shtml

Course, it would logically follow that if a team is trading a pick that high that there are competing offers out there. Course, fans would rather think that the FO were idiots.

So you write your own fiction. You post an article from February 7, 2004 that is primarily about the Redskins being interested in Brunell though it mentions other teams being interested by... You guessed it, Jack Del Rio, as if he didn't have any interest in driving up "demand". By the time the Redskins actually executed the trade, all interest had dwindled. Nice try.

Uh, no, because we already had a veteran on the roster who had proven his worth with Collins.

It's pretty hilarious how you play players up and down just to suit whatever you feel like rationalizing. Now Campbell was bad, Collins is good, Buzbee was awesome, the rest of the DE's weren't.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug. I guess I would have to have some to understand what the hell you are talking about.

I should've known you wouldn't even be able to follow analogies.

You said it was a shot in the dark, i.e. a crapshoot, where Nemo was taken. My point was to take a shot in the dark at something you actually need. Do you need cocaine to understand that?

Is that because of injuries, or is that because of the struggles the team was having offensively with Campbell filling out his first full year?

If you actually looked into it, you'd see that Portis failed to get over the 4.0 mark twice during the 4-game stretch with Todd Collins at the helm, once posting an average of 2.1. That's horrendous.

Got anymore excuses you want to try?

Considering what was left was the journeyman Evans, the on-the-mend James, the pass rush specialist Wilson and the raw rookie Jackson to play that side of the field, things were pretty thin. While we could have lived with that, the need was there.

Jason

So Jackson is raw and Evans is a journeyman, but Buzbee was great despite never playing a game. That's great.

And if it was a need, why didn't we fill it with the draft? So we could get Fred Davis?

[Oldfan]

I love Zorn but he's playing guys that Gibbs molded into strong-charactered athletes. I'm not making a statement on anything lacking in Jim. I'm just agreeing that the offensive core is the beating heart of JJG with a better-suited coach for the modern game.

Zorn is "playing guys that Gibbs molded into strong character athletes" and "the offensive core is the beating heart of JJG."

That reads like pure hype because that's what it is.

With the exception of old Pete Kendall and mediocre Rabach, the O line which moves this team now is the same one Gibbs inherited from Spurrier but five years older and hobbled with injuries. If Joe had kept more draft picks from 2004 to 2006, we'd likely have players better than Heyer to keep us moving forward.

[Larry Brown #43]

Shilsu, at this point it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're all over the map. You covered everything from Brunell to Fred Davis in your last post.

The original point of this thread was to look at the unusual/unconventional ways we went about acquiring the key offensive skill position players on the current roster, and how those moves have worked out.

Let's get the thread back on topic...there are plenty of other threads to voice some of the concerns you've voiced in this one.

Oldfan has said he thinks we gave up too much in the Portis and Campbell trades, and that the Moss trade was a wash. I don't agree with him, but at least he's on topic.

Again, each of those trades was controversial at the time it was made, and it's interesting to look back at whether such momumental trades have worked out in retrospect. The moves discussed in the original post have formed the core of our offensive skill positions, so let's get back on track.

This thread isn't the place to air out every grievance you have with the front office. There are plenty of other threads for that. I noted in the original post that there are a number of moves the organization has made in recent years one can question.

[Oldfan]

];5747373']Except' date=' he kind of did.[/quote']

You don't "kind of" define words.

Why don't you try it?

What does the term "franchise QB" mean when you use it?

[Oldfan]

Again, each of those trades was controversial at the time it was made, and it's interesting to look back at whether such momumental trades have worked out in retrospect.

In Gibbs Two the four most controversial trades were:

The trade for Brunell

The trade for Portis

The trade of three picks for Campbell

The trade of three picks for Rocky

The trade of Coles for Moss and the acquisition of Cooley as a #3 pick were not controversial. If we're going to analyze the non-controversial trades, then let's add Brandon Lloyd.

I maintain that Champ was worth a #1 and a #3 at a minimum. With that in mind, I count 10 draft picks spent acquiring Portis, Rocky and Campbell for the current roster since Brunell is gone.

Your argument that Cooley should count as a plus for Gibbs Two is just fine with me. Just think how much better off we'd be with such keen foresight on ten more draft picks that were traded away.

You are making your argument while the recent evidence is hot and cherry-picking your trade examples. That's pretty weak.

[TheLongshot]

So you write your own fiction. You post an article from February 7, 2004 that is primarily about the Redskins being interested in Brunell though it mentions other teams being interested by... You guessed it, Jack Del Rio, as if he didn't have any interest in driving up "demand". By the time the Redskins actually executed the trade, all interest had dwindled. Nice try.

Yeah, it is quite believable that the skins would "give away" a third round pick just because they are so damn nice. It couldn't be because there were other offers on the table. No, that just isn't possible.

It's pretty hilarious how you play players up and down just to suit whatever you feel like rationalizing. Now Campbell was bad, Collins is good, Buzbee was awesome, the rest of the DE's weren't.

It is pretty hilarious how you put words in my mouth. When Gibbs got here, we didn't have a veteran backup. When Zorn got here, we did have a veteran backup. Simple as that.

I should've known you wouldn't even be able to follow analogies.

It helps if they make sense.

You said it was a shot in the dark, i.e. a crapshoot, where Nemo was taken. My point was to take a shot in the dark at something you actually need. Do you need cocaine to understand that?

Uh, by definition 7th round picks are crapshoots. It is pretty much a head start on signing rookie FAs. You are really trying to select the best from your list at that point no matter what the position. That's why I don't get criticizing anything that late in the draft.

If you actually looked into it, you'd see that Portis failed to get over the 4.0 mark twice during the 4-game stretch with Todd Collins at the helm, once posting an average of 2.1. That's horrendous.

Probably because the focus is going to be on stopping our best offensive player, particularly when the passing game was struggling for most of the year with a young QB who hadn't played 16 games yet and WRs who were in and out because of injury. If I was the opposing defense, I'd probably have either the young guy or the guy who hasn't played in 10 years beat me over Portis.

Course, it annoys me that people expect that the guys on the bench should be as good as the guys who are starting. If they were that good, they'd be starting someplace, either then or now for a different team. There are reasons why backups are backups.

So Jackson is raw and Evans is a journeyman, but Buzbee was great despite never playing a game. That's great.

Again, where did I ever say he was great? What I was pointing out is that the numbers weren't that great and that once a starter goes down, you'd rather replace the player with a starter, particularly if you think your team is a playoff contender. (I guess Zorn proved most of us wrong about this team.)

But, to say losing Buzbee wasn't a factor in the decision at all is pretty naive of you.

And if it was a need, why didn't we fill it with the draft? So we could get Fred Davis?

Well, it wasn't a "need" until Daniels went down, which was well after the draft. It was a want, since we did draft Jackson and were very interested in drafting Merling.

But, as we have seen with our picks, just because you are drafted doesn't mean that you are going to be able to help your team from day one.

Jason

[SonnyJ]

Shilsu, at this point it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

You're just now realizing this about BOTH of these guys? BOTH of them are highly insecure and feel the need in any thread they enter to prove that they are the smartest people in the room.

There is no debating with either of these guys. They are utterly incapable of seeing points of view that differ from their entrenched narrow vision. It's difficult not to engage with them because their smugness just begs to be smacked, but you have to resist the urge because it will only lead to frustration due to their inability to comprehend logical counterpoints to their warped thoughts.

Both hide behind an intellectual facade, but it's been my experience that one of the hallmarks of intellectual weakness is being unable to concede that there is merit to other people's ideas. Another is speaking with certitude on subjects on which the speaker lacks authority. The wisest people I've known are those that are well aware of what they DON'T know. To put it mildly, neither of these guys suffer from that affliction.

[TheLongshot]

The trade of Coles for Moss and the acquisition of Cooley as a #3 pick were not controversial.

A little revisionist history on your part about the Coles-Moss trade. While fans were moderately happy to get rid of Coles, they weren't happy about the cap hit, which led to Pierce and Smoot leaving. They also weren't happy about the big contract given to Moss due to the perception that he wasn't as good as Coles. So, there was plenty of controversy with that move.

Course, such things can go the other way as well, as it did with Lloyd. Giving him a big contract ended up being a big mistake.

I maintain that Champ was worth a #1 and a #3 at a minimum. With that in mind, I count 10 draft picks spent acquiring Portis, Rocky and Campbell for the current roster since Brunell is gone.

Champ probably was worth a 1st round pick, if we had the leverage, which we did not. Considering that we needed to create cap room just to franchise him, everyone and their brother knew we needed to move him. I'm just glad that we got a great player in return.

Jason

[Larry Brown #43]

The trade of Coles for Moss and the acquisition of Cooley as a #3 pick were not controversial. If we're going to analyze the non-controversial trades, then let's add Brandon Lloyd.

I'm not cherry-picking. I'm looking at the primary offensive skill positions on our current roster, and the unconventional ways in which we acquired each of them. I'm not discussing Brunell because he's not even on the roster anymore. Brandon Lloyd is also no longer on the roster.

If you want to slam the moves we made to get Brunell and Lloyd, feel free to start a thread about it.

The Moss deal absolutely was controversial...partly because of the trade itself, but even more so because we tore up his contract and wrote him a new one before he played a down for us. The general reaction to that from fans was that it was "more of the same" from Snyder--dishing out big money deals to guys who haven't played a down for us.

As I mentioned in my original post, I didn't say that drafting Cooley was controversial. I just said it took foresight. Gibbs new he wanted Cooley before the draft even took place.

Again, I'm looking at our main offensive weapons, and how we acquired them. There's a story behind each--a highly unusual blockbuster trade of star players (Portis/Bailey), another trade of veteran for veteran (Moss/Coles), a three-for-one draft day trade (for Campbell), and a third-rounder used on a guy who is arguably the most important piece of our offense.

If you think we botched any of the trades, that's fine. As I've said, you're entitled to your opinion.

This thread really isn't as complicated as some are making it out to be. I'm simply looking at our main offensive weapons--all of whom are performing well, retracing how we acquired each of them, and with the benefit of hindsight, discussing how those moves turned out.

There are plenty of other threads out there where ESers are welcome to bash other moves made by the organization. This thread is looking at the main offensive weapons on the current roster and how they were acquired.

[JdoubleU]

Thanks, Joe. People can complain (I was one) about LLoyd, Brunnell, & Duckett. But the foundation of this team was laid during Gibbs' watch. Don't forget Fletcher, Springs, McIntosh, Rogers, and before his passing, #21 (and not Winslow). Such personnel moves may be his final legacy here, especially if the Skins make a run in January. The sad thing is VC is back in charge of personnel and his higher picks aren't providing much, if anything.