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

[Voice_of_Reason]

JT > PD

DE + CW - JT = Good

DE + CW - PD = Needs JT

Yeah that's some great logic.

All I can say is read the original quote that I was referring to. You're logic is just flat broke. I'm at work and I can't really go into it now. But when I get home I'll be happy to explain.

[TheLongshot]

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.

I do find it amazing that people still want to focus on 2006, which was admittidly not the brightest year in this organization's history, and ignore the other three years of Gibbs' run. It was in those three years (and even some of 2006 as well) that the cornerstones of this team were laid.

Jason

[Oldfan]

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.

No one is going to believe that your frustration with me has to do with my inability to understand your logic. It doesn't work that way.

If I were too dumb to understand you, you wouldn't follow me around slamming me personally while offering nothing on topic.

Face it. I piss you off because you can't handle me in debate.

[No Excuses]

I love the core of this team and I think it will only get better when Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly start producing for us.

[TheItalianStallion]

Portis: What we gave up was a 2nd. Baily was gone either through trade or he was going to be released. So he was gone no matter what. So Portis went for a second.

You are misinformed about this trade which has been discussed ad nauseum.

How is VoR misinformed?

[elkabong82]

A nice topic to discuss, it's too bad certain people had to ruin it by hijacking the thread and turning into their list of personal grievances they can't ever shut up about.

Regardless of surrounding circumstances, we landed some great players under Gibbs, and given their hard work and dedication I am glad to see it paying dividends now.

[Oldfan]

LB#43, from your conclusion:

The point here is simply to look at the unconventional ways in which we managed to acquire the core offensive skill positions on this team. The inherent risks involved, the controversy that ensued, the guts demonstrated, and the massive payoff we’re enjoying today.

It’s kind of cool to take a step back after much of the dust has settled and be able to say, “you know what? We did pretty damn good.

The drafting of Cooley wasn't unconventional, controversial or gutsy. You could say "We did pretty damn good with that pick" if you want to, but I have to ask, "So what? What do you make of that?"

The trade for Portis was controversial, still is and always will be. If the statement "We did pretty damn good" implies that we got the best of that trade, then you need to supply reasoning to support it. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

The trade Coles for Moss -- the trade itself, not Moss's contract negotiations -- was not controversial. It didn't take guts. It was forced on us, so even if you value Moss far more highly than Coles, you'd have to credit dumb luck that we came out well.

Giving up three picks for Jason Campbell was controversial. Except for his athletic ability, nothing that we saw in his first three seasons made success predictable. It took the unlikely event of Dan and Vinny hiring a position coach to coach the Redskins to change Jason's career path. You could say, "It looks like that trade could work out to our benefit after all." but you can't say with any conviction that it was a good decision when the trade was made.

Furthermore, although you deny cherry picking, your statement, "You know what? We did pretty damn good" sounds to me like an overall judgment of the deals made by Gibbs and Co. early in Gibbs Two. But you don't want to consider those that failed, so maybe what you really meant is that the players you selected are doing well right now even if we overpaid for them or just got lucky in their development.

[Larry Brown #43]

Oldfan, if you want to credit dumb luck for the fact that Campbell, Moss, and Portis are playing very well, and that we lucked into those deals not blowing up in our face, then fine. You can have that opinion. And when these players play well on Sundays, you can revel in just how lucky we are that they don't suck. I guess sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

And if we win the division or accomplish even greater things this season, you can design a t-shirt that says: 'Washington Redskins: Luckiest Team Ever.' Whatever makes you happy.

You and I disagree. Good bye.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, if you want to credit dumb luck for the fact that Campbell, Moss, and Portis are playing very well...

That's not what I said, but I'm always pleased when my opponent has to twist my words to make his points.

[TheLongshot]

The drafting of Cooley wasn't unconventional, controversial or gutsy. You could say "We did pretty damn good with that pick" if you want to, but I have to ask, "So what? What do you make of that?"

That the team identified him as a guy worth trading a pick for to get? :whoknows: I think it is gutsy to trade up for a guy.

The trade for Portis was controversial, still is and always will be. If the statement "We did pretty damn good" implies that we got the best of that trade, then you need to supply reasoning to support it. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

That each team got what they wanted. Why does one side have to "win" and the other guy "lose"? The trade - in my view - was pretty even in the end. From my biased view, I think we made out better because Portis contributes more to wins than Champ Bailey does.

The trade Coles for Moss -- the trade itself, not Moss's contract negotiations -- was not controversial. It didn't take guts. It was forced on us, so even if you value Moss far more highly than Coles, you'd have to credit dumb luck that we came out well.

Nothing was "forced" as far as that trade went. We did not have to trade Coles. We could have forced him to play with us. It was a choice Gibbs made based on Coles' attitude. And yes, that choice was controversial because it caused us to not resign a couple free agents that we wanted to keep.

Yes, we were somewhat lucky that Moss was actually available and that we could trade with the team where Coles wanted to go back to, but the fact that Moss was successful isn't that lucky. Moss was a guy that the FO did covet when he was drafted, but Marty went with Gardner instead.

Giving up three picks for Jason Campbell was controversial. Except for his athletic ability, nothing that we saw in his first three seasons made success predictable. It took the unlikely event of Dan and Vinny hiring a position coach to coach the Redskins to change Jason's career path. You could say, "It looks like that trade could work out to our benefit after all." but you can't say with any conviction that it was a good decision when the trade was made.

I guess you are never going to admit you were wrong about Campbell. No **** nothing is guaranteed, but QBs don't often come fully formed when they come out of college, and there are going to be issues when the guy needs to learn three different offenses since he was drafted. (Ask Alex Smith how that has affected him.)

To be honest, I saw Campbell being mostly on track. I felt that toward the end of last year he was on the cusp of being good. I don't feel that Zorn saved him, but built on the base that was already there.

Jason

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot: That the team identified him as a guy worth trading a pick for to get?

So, they spotted Cooley and they were right. So what? What point was the OP making with that observation? Read the conclusions in the OP and tell me which conclusion was supported.

I think we made out better because Portis contributes more to wins than Champ Bailey does.

Trades of any kind are judged by the market values of the items traded, not by your personal whim. Champ was worth more than Clinton. Your side of this debate knows this. That's why you and others have fabricated seven different theories on why the Redskins were hard-pressed sellers. None of these theories hold water.

I guess you are never going to admit you were wrong about Campbell.

I said my first impression was that he was a good athlete with lousy mechanics. Why should I admit being wrong about that?

I said this was his bubble year, and he had to make significant improvement. I said he has made significant improvement and he looks like he's now over the hump. He looks like a good QB to me now. He's quicker, more compact, and more accurate.

What do you want me to retract?

[DieselPwr44]

I guess you are never going to admit you were wrong about Campbell. No **** nothing is guaranteed, but QBs don't often come fully formed when they come out of college, and there are going to be issues when the guy needs to learn three different offenses since he was drafted. (Ask Alex Smith how that has affected him.) the base that was already there.

Jason

Just remember Jason that you are debating with a guy who has no clue as to what a franchise QB is.

Unless he's being facetious.

Nawwww not Oldfan. Couldn't be...

[Oldfan]

Just remember Jason that you are debating with a guy who has no clue as to what a franchise QB is.

Unless he's being facetious.

Nawwww not Oldfan. Couldn't be...

The term can only be defined by the person using it. It has at least three different meanings as near as I can tell.

Some say a franchise QB is one you draft and then build your team around them. By that definition Tom Brady is not a franchise QB.

You gave me a list of QBs connected to perennial winners. So, by your implied definition, the label "franchise QB" is only applied after lots of success. So, Bernie Kosar wasn't a franchise QB even though he started for his franchise for several years.

But, suppose Kosar and Joe Montana swapped teams with Kosar going to the HOF. Would Kosar then be the franchise Qb or would they both be labeled?

Help me out here.

[JohnnyUtah]

Really great post!

This is excellent insight and I can't think of 4 guys around the same age the any other team wouldn't want to build around. Go Skins!

[DieselPwr44]

The term can only be defined by the person using it. It has at least three different meanings as near as I can tell.

Some say a franchise QB is one you draft and then build your team around them. By that definition Tom Brady is not a franchise QB.

You gave me a list of QBs connected to perennial winners. So, by your implied definition, the label "franchise QB" is only applied after lots of success. So, Bernie Kosar wasn't a franchise QB even though he started for his franchise for several years.

But, suppose Kosar and Joe Montana swapped teams with Kosar going to the HOF. Would Kosar then be the franchise Qb or would they both be labeled?

Help me out here.

IMO, Both Kosar and Montana were franchise QB's.

Go back and read post #36 in this thread. What part of this:

when you have one guy at the QB position that performs above average for most of his career, that's a Franchise QB.

And

Fans of those teams never once went into camp wondering who their starting QB was.

Is so hard to understand and apply to the QB position??

[Shilsu]

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.

I guess that's what happened with TJ Duckett and Brandon Lloyd and Clinton Portis.

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.

And it's hilarious how you believe a veteran backup is worth a seven year $43M contract.

It helps if they make sense.

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.

That's the exact reason your philosophy is completely boneheaded. Why would you attempt to crapshoot for something you don't need when you do have other needs.

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.

Are you backtracking again?

I said Portis failed to make 4.0 YPA.

YOU said that was because of Campbell.

I said Portis failed to do it with Collins.

Now you say it's because of Collins also. Keep conjuring your excuses.

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.

No one expects them to be as good as the guys who are starting. They just don't expect them to suck.

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.

You said the reason we signed Jason Taylor was because Buzbee went down even though we already had Jackson, James, Evans, and Wilson. Now you claim it was a numbers game. Wow.

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

So an aging 35 year old DE who has been injured in the past not to mention a 32 year old DT who also has battled injuries does not qualify for a "need" at those positions for depth, but a 26 year old Pro Bowl TE who has not seen injuries "needs" depth behind him.

I suppose you feel if Cooley got injured and we had not drafted Fred Davis, we should have scrambled to trade picks for Tony Gonzales.

[Shilsu]

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.

Right and guess what my first post was. Then read your reply about how no team has great depth and how you proceed to bring up examples on our defense.

[TheLongshot]

Trades of any kind are judged by the market values of the items traded, not by your personal whim. Champ was worth more than Clinton. Your side of this debate knows this. That's why you and others have fabricated seven different theories on why the Redskins were hard-pressed sellers. None of these theories hold water.

Market value is also dependant on whether or not you need to liquidate. We needed to liquidate Champ from our books and everyone knew that. That instantly reduces his value because teams knew that we could not keep him on the roster.

Meanwhile, Portis was still on his rookie contract. They had no pressing need to trade him. It was a seller's market for Portis. Denver could set whatever price they wanted while we had to take whatever was out there.

What do you want me to retract?

That Campbell wasn't worth three draft picks. I still haven't seen you come up with how we could have gotten a better player at the QB position without giving up picks.

Jason

[Larry Brown #43]

Right and guess what my first post was. Then read your reply about how no team has great depth and how you proceed to bring up examples on our defense.

In your first post you were critical of the team's depth. And I never should have engaged you in that discussion, because that's not at all what this thread was about in the first place. Your comment about the depth was out of place for this thread, and I was wrong for even bothering to respond to it.

[Oldfan]

IMO, Both Kosar and Montana were franchise QB's. Go back and read post #36 in this thread. What part of this:

Is so hard to understand and apply to the QB position??

Well YOUR definition of the term is clearing up with your further explanation. But how was I supposed to guess that the list of QBs you gave me of QBs of perennial winners was just coincidental? You misled me into thinking that maybe you apply the term ONLY to QBs of perennial winners.

Now, you said that the QB had to perform above-average. How do you know if he's above average? He might be an average QB on a very good team. How about a QB who is below average but still the best QB on his team over an extended period of time?

As I mentioned earlier, some people use the franchise QB to mean a QB drafted who is good enough to build around. Have they misused the term in your opinion?

[Shilsu]

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.

SonnyJ, do you ever have anything useful to contribute to this topic? Including the piece of crap you just posted, here are your other posts in this thread:

Anyone who thinks that the Redskins lack depth is just not paying any attention.

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.

How do you even have the nerve to personally attack anyone or their discussion of football is beyond me. Just looking through your posting history, it's a disturbing pattern considering you have some of the worst insight on this board.

Take this gem.

Art: Wuerffel's remarkable accuracy isn't going to suddenly go away because there's a better player defending his receiver.

SonnyJ: Precisely, Art. This is what the nattering nabobs of negativity don't get.

You have no thoughts of your own and it's hilarious, especially from the QB thread where all of a sudden you latched onto "QB Theory" and start parroting it in other threads in ATN as if you discovered it somehow.

Try and think for yourself, and quit pointing fingers about how other people cannot give merit to ideas or how they lack football knowledge, when YOU are the most guilty of them all.

[Oldfan]

Market value is also dependant on whether or not you need to liquidate. We needed to liquidate Champ from our books and everyone knew that.

That's fiction created because you know full well that Bailey was worth than Portis.

That Campbell wasn't worth three draft picks. I still haven't seen you come up with how we could have gotten a better player at the QB position without giving up picks.

Why must I supply you with an option? Are you claiming that the Skins had their hands tied on this trade also? We needed to take Jason or all hope was lost?

IMO a QB coming out of college with lousy mechanics isn't worth a #1, a #3, and a #4. He was a very high risk.

If Jason had achieved his current level of success sooner without the extensive work done by Al Saunders and Jim Zorn, I would have admitted I was wrong when it happened.

[TheLongshot]

I guess that's what happened with TJ Duckett and Brandon Lloyd and Clinton Portis.

Well, I already addressed Portis above in reply to Oldfan. No, we didn't give away picks there.

As for Lloyd, I actually thought it was decent value for him based on how he had produced so far. Unfortunately, the major failing was not judging his head correctly. The kid has all the talent in the world, tho.

As for Duckett, I always thought it was a stupid trade, but that's one of the few stupid trades this team has done.

And it's hilarious how you believe a veteran backup is worth a seven year $43M contract.

I know it raised some eyebrows, but considering that he was going to probably start from day one at the very least, that Ramsey was on his rookie contract, and that he wasn't going to see a lot of that value because it was on the back end, I can see where they were going with that.

That's the exact reason your philosophy is completely boneheaded. Why would you attempt to crapshoot for something you don't need when you do have other needs.

In the 7th round, you are picking BPA, because at that point you are looking for players who have a chance of making a roster in the NFL.

Are you backtracking again?

Not at all. A big reason why Portis struggled was that no one respected our passing game. Once they did (when defenses found out Collins could throw the ball) Portis' numbers went up.

No one expects them to be as good as the guys who are starting. They just don't expect them to suck.

If they sucked, they wouldn't have been back. Hell, Heyer won the RT position in training camp. Yeah, he must have sucked last year.

You said the reason we signed Jason Taylor was because Buzbee went down even though we already had Jackson, James, Evans, and Wilson. Now you claim it was a numbers game. Wow.

No, what I said was that we traded for Taylor because we lost Daniels AND Buzbee and it became a numbers game because Evans was the only healthy, experienced full time player who could take his spot. Again, James is recovering from injury, Wilson is a pass rush specialist, and who knows if Jackson was going to even make the team.

So an aging 35 year old DE who has been injured in the past not to mention a 32 year old DT who also has battled injuries does not qualify for a "need" at those positions for depth, but a 26 year old Pro Bowl TE who has not seen injuries "needs" depth behind him.

The FO was pretty up front that getting a DT who could get push was something that they really wanted. Unfortunately, they couldn't find that guy. That guy certainly wasn't there when we drafted Davis, since Laws was picked the pick before. That's the way of the draft: you don't reach for needs and take what the draft gives you.

I suppose you feel if Cooley got injured and we had not drafted Fred Davis, we should have scrambled to trade picks for Tony Gonzales.

It is much easier to find decent TEs on the street than it is to find D-linemen.

[TheLongshot]

That's fiction created because you know full well that Bailey was worth than Portis.

It doesn't matter if Bailey was worth more than Portis, because Bailey was devalued because other teams knew we needed to be rid of him. If we didn't, we couldn't do much of anything to improve the team (and it needed a lot of improvement)

Would it have been worth it to hold onto a player who had no desire to be here when you could move forward and actually sign players who did want to be here? I mean, you talk about passing up all of free agency to get a couple of picks which may or may not turn into great players.

Why must I supply you with an option? Are you claiming that the Skins had their hands tied on this trade also? We needed to take Jason or all hope was lost?

Well, it would have been more expensive. The last 1st round QB in 2006 was Jay Cutler at #11. If you think that Campbell was expensive...

But, if you don't feel you have a franchise QB and you identify a guy you believe can be one, you need to go after him.

IMO a QB coming out of college with lousy mechanics isn't worth a #1, a #3, and a #4. He was a very high risk.

Mechanics is the least of a QBs problems. That at least can be fixed. You can't give a QB a brain or a big arm or mobility, all of which Campbell showed in college.

If Jason had achieved his current level of success sooner without the extensive work done by Al Saunders and Jim Zorn, I would have admitted I was wrong when it happened.

There are few QBs that find that much success early. Hell, Eli Manning was a Top 10 pick, but I didn't think he was good until this year.

Jason

[Oldfan]

The Longshot: It doesn't matter if Bailey was worth more than Portis, because Bailey was devalued because other teams knew we needed to be rid of him.

I can't debate fiction. All that I can say is that your claim is bogus. It does not square with the events before or after the trade.

But, if you don't feel you have a franchise QB and you identify a guy you believe can be one, you need to go after him.

Certainly, but moving up in the draft has a long history proving it to be a poor strategy generally. The Campbell trade was just one of a series of move-up trades we made that tried to buck the odds. There's a reason that we aren't doing it anymore. We didn't get enough return.

Mechanics is the least of a QBs problems. That at least can be fixed. You can't give a QB a brain or a big arm or mobility, all of which Campbell showed in college.

I've already granted Campbell's athleticism, but your attempt to minimize the mechanics in his case is downright funny. I don't believe there has ever been as ambitious a makeover attempt in the history of the NFL. It take a supremely self-confident QB coach to even make the attempt.

There are few QBs that find that much success early.

Hell, Eli Manning was a Top 10 pick, but I didn't think he was good until this year.

I wouldn't give up a number one for Eli even now. But, most QBs don't take that long to show something.

You can't tell about the ability to read defenses, attitude, and so on, but you see a Jay Cutler make 10 or 15 throws and you say, "wow!" He was a steal at #11.