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

[DieselPwr44]

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?

No.

Every team that has ever spent a high pick on a QB did so with the intent of building around him.

They also drafted him in hopes that with coaching,he would develop into an upper echelon QB.

Some make it, some don't, due to the fact that you cannot test "heart", leadership,pocket presence and decision making under pressure in a Wonderlic test or with a drill at the combine.

If you're a GM and you misfire on that pick(according to Bill Parcells), you've set your franchise back 6 years. But yet, you still see teams rolling the dice in the draft(and in contract dollars) in search of that franchise QB.

Why? Because when you find one you've completed half the puzzle,IMO and are well on your way to being competitive week in and week out in the NFL.:2cents:

[Oldfan]

DP44: Every team that has ever spent a high pick on a QB did so with the intent of building around him. ...Why? Because when you find one you've completed half the puzzle,IMO and are well on your way to being competitive week in and week out in the NFL.

Seems like a very poor bet to me. The only QB on your list who was drafted with the intent of building around him is Peyton...and just offhand I can't think of another perennial winner in the history of the NFL who drafted their QB with that intent.

Joe Montana

Johnny Unitas

Steve Young

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

So, summing up, in your opinion, a "franchise QB" can be: one drafted with the intent of being good enough to build around; one who isn't good enough to build around, but is simply the best QB on the roster over an extended period; one whose team is a perennial winner; or one whose team is a loser.

Now, I betcha if I asked another well-informed fan the same question, I'd get a different answer. This is just YOUR answer.

[DieselPwr44]

So, summing up, in your opinion, a "franchise QB" can be: one drafted with the intent of being good enough to build around; one who isn't good enough to build around, but is simply the best QB on the roster over an extended period; one whose team is a perennial winner; or one whose team is a loser.

Do you believe teams actually care where they find their franchise qb??

Whether it be 1st round or 7th round or in the case of Unitas, a street FA??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your assertion that anybody can play QB as long as they're a good athlete?

[Shilsu]

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.

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.

There are so many things wrong with your entire premise. First of all, let's go with your own contradictions.

Champ Bailey was devalued because despite other teams being interested in him and the franchise tag he had, in YOUR opinion he would have been released anyway.

Mark Brunell was overvalued because despite he was going to be released anyway according to YOUR article, other teams interested in him drove his price up.

Which way is it? Or do the Redskins just get the benefit of whichever logic works in their favor according to you?

And Mark Brunell was getting paid $4M in base salary in his third year. That's not the back end and that's not what you pay a backup QB.

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.

Do you not realize that there was no room for keeping that many FB/HB/RB or whatever position Nemo was supposed to play, ESPECIALLY since we already drafted White?

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.

Wow, you spit nonsense yet again.

First you assert that Portis struggled not because of the injuries to the offense line, but because of Campbell.

Then you change it to that it was also because no one respected Collins.

Now you change it to Portis' numbers went up once defenses could find out Collins could throw the ball.

When was that? WHEN did Portis' numbers go up? Oh that's right, they didn't. EVEN PORTIS HIMSELF said that he never had a healthy offensive line to help him like this year. Just how long are you going to keep up your inane charade?

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.

I guess according to your logic, Brandon Lloyd didn't suck because he came back for a second year. I guess Ade Jimoh didn't suck because he was back every year. I guess Holdman didn't suck because he was back his second year. Any player that comes back doesn't suck. Bravo.

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.

Evans was the only healthy, experienced full time player WITH or WITHOUT Buzbee. Stop contradicting yourself, please.

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.

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

Yet another contradiction. It's easier to find decent TEs on the street than it is to find D-linemen... So you spend valuable draft picks on TE.

Is there anything you can't spin?

[TheLongshot]

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.

Please enlighten me. What have I said that is fiction? It is a fact to franchise Champ that they needed to redo Samuels and Arrington's contracts to get enough cap space to franchise 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.

Well, the reason why we aren't doing it now is because the need to do is is reduced from the fact that we don't have too many positions where we absolutely need to draft an impact player right now. Maybe Defensive Tackle, but most of the good ones went in the top 10. Considering the price Jacksonville paid to get up there, it probably wasn't worth it.

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.

Talk about hyperbole... You talk as if coaches don't work on mechanics much at all.

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

I think he showed plenty of promise in finishing out 2006.

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.

Cutler hasn't been THAT great. Or, maybe you are influenced by the fact that so many top QB prospects flame out that Cutler looks amazing in comparison.

Jason

[Shilsu]

Let's sum up Longshot's main points on this last page alone.

1. Trade Value

When you know a player (Mark Brunell) is going to be released but other teams are supposedly interested, it's OK to overpay. When you know a player (Champ Bailey) is going to be released (speculation since he was franchised) but other teams are supposedly interested, it's OK to get less value.

2. Backup QB

If you plan to have a veteran backup QB, you should be willing to give him a 7YR $43M contract complete with an $8M signing bonus and salaries of $4M, $6.6M, $7.8M, and $9M beginning with his third year. If he ends up starting, that only justifies his contract more, but make no mistake, the plan is for him to be a backup.

3. Running Game

Despite the fact that Ladell Betts ran for 1000 yards with Jason Campbell at the helm in 2006, the reason Clinton Portis struggled in 2007 was because of Jason Campbell and Todd Collins, not because of injuries to the offensive line. It doesn't matter what Portis said about being unable to fulfill his potential due to injuries on the line.

4. Draft Strategy

You should draft players even if they won't be able to fit on your active roster. It's a crapshoot anyway.

5. Player Grades

If a player stays on the same team for two years, that automatically means the player is good.

6. Defensive Line

The reason we traded for Jason Taylor is because Buzbee got injured. If only Phillip Daniels got injured, we would not have needed Jason Taylor.

7. TE vs DE

A TE is easier to find in free agency than a DE. That's why you should draft TE.

[charlton]

I wanted to get back to the OP statements on the acquisitions of Cooley, Portis, Moss, and Campbell....

Yes Joe Gibbs II made many mistakes in personnel decisions....and yes all those lost draft choices could have been used to make the skins a better/deeper team than they currently are....

BUT he also made what is now becoming apparent to be some excellent personnel decisions.....

Sure you could attribute some of it to luck or good fortune, but hey, isn't that what it takes often times to turn a middling team into a championship caliber team?? The Rams got lucky with Warner, New England got lucky with Brady, Dallas got lucky with Romo sits to pee....

We should just be thankful that after all those years of mediocrity following the post Gibbs I era, the Skins are now a talented team with possibly a bright future. All in all, Gibbs left this team in a much better shape than when he got here.

[TheLongshot]

There are so many things wrong with your entire premise. First of all, let's go with your own contradictions.

Champ Bailey was devalued because despite other teams being interested in him and the franchise tag he had, in YOUR opinion he would have been released anyway.

Mark Brunell was overvalued because despite he was going to be released anyway according to YOUR article, other teams interested in him drove his price up.

Which way is it? Or do the Redskins just get the benefit of whichever logic works in their favor according to you?

That's because starting-caliber QBs don't come available in the open market all that often. Fact is, there weren't that many good options out there for a team looking for a quality QB.

http://www.obc.net/greg/fa2004qb.html

Not exactly an attractive bunch (forget about getting Peyton there, he never hit the open market.)

Later on, Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia came available, but a new coach wants to get a good start on getting his offense installed, particularly when the incumbent couldn't practice for a while.

Course, we've seen it again this offseason, where the Jets were willing to give up a potential first round pick for Brett Favre. Sure, he's a first ballot hall of famer, but how many years does he have left? Yet, both the Jets and Tampa (and if they were able to get in the race, the Vikings) were all interested in trading for him. I guess the Redskins aren't the only ones who overpay for over-the-hill QBs.

And Mark Brunell was getting paid $4M in base salary in his third year. That's not the back end and that's not what you pay a backup QB.

I'm sure if he wasn't starting, they'd work the numbers, like they did the next year. The Redskins are pretty good at it.

Do you not realize that there was no room for keeping that many FB/HB/RB or whatever position Nemo was supposed to play, ESPECIALLY since we already drafted White?

Course, that's assuming that everyone from your rookie class actually makes the roster, which often doesn't happen. So sometimes you collect players at a position, particularly if there was a player you think is a good value pick from where you are.

That is also assuming that they were going to play the same position. White was going to be converted to an H-Back while Nemo was used as a straight running back. When Saunders got here, he was converted to a FB.

When was that? WHEN did Portis' numbers go up? Oh that's right, they didn't. EVEN PORTIS HIMSELF said that he never had a healthy offensive line to help him like this year. Just how long are you going to keep up your inane charade?

Can't even do some simple research?

http://www.nfl.com/players/clintonportis/gamelogs?id=POR792942&season=2007

Last three games of the season which Collins started:

Giants: 126 yards 5.0 ypc

Minn: 76 yards 3.8 ypc

Cowboys: 104 yards 4.2 ypc

Just as a note, the Vikings had the top run defense in the league last year, so I'd expect those numbers to be slightly depressed.

Evans was the only healthy, experienced full time player WITH or WITHOUT Buzbee. Stop contradicting yourself, please.

Buzbee at least had one season with the team. He was more of a known than Jackson.

Yet another contradiction. It's easier to find decent TEs on the street than it is to find D-linemen... So you spend valuable draft picks on TE.

If you think he's heads and shoulders better than anyone else on the board at that point, sure.

Jason

[Shilsu]

That's because starting-caliber QBs don't come available in the open market all that often. Fact is, there weren't that many good options out there for a team looking for a quality QB.

http://www.obc.net/greg/fa2004qb.html

Not exactly an attractive bunch (forget about getting Peyton there, he never hit the open market.)

Later on, Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia came available, but a new coach wants to get a good start on getting his offense installed, particularly when the incumbent couldn't practice for a while.

Course, we've seen it again this offseason, where the Jets were willing to give up a potential first round pick for Brett Favre. Sure, he's a first ballot hall of famer, but how many years does he have left? Yet, both the Jets and Tampa (and if they were able to get in the race, the Vikings) were all interested in trading for him. I guess the Redskins aren't the only ones who overpay for over-the-hill QBs.

I'm sure if he wasn't starting, they'd work the numbers, like they did the next year. The Redskins are pretty good at it.

First of all, make up your mind. Was Brunell brought in to be a starter or a veteran backup? You've pretty much flip flopped through this entire thread. If he was brought in as a starter, than Ramsey should have been traded for assets that would've made a huge impact on the team. If he was brought in to be a backup or even to compete for the job, then he shouldn't have been paid that much.

Either way, you lose.

Course, that's assuming that everyone from your rookie class actually makes the roster, which often doesn't happen. So sometimes you collect players at a position, particularly if there was a player you think is a good value pick from where you are.

That is also assuming that they were going to play the same position. White was going to be converted to an H-Back while Nemo was used as a straight running back. When Saunders got here, he was converted to a FB.

If you're drafting the BPA in the fourth round instead of addressing areas of need because you're so sure he's heads and shoulders above everyone else... And you're not sure he's going to make the roster, then you need to be fired.

Can't even do some simple research?

http://www.nfl.com/players/clintonportis/gamelogs?id=POR792942&season=2007

Last three games of the season which Collins started:

Giants: 126 yards 5.0 ypc

Minn: 76 yards 3.8 ypc

Cowboys: 104 yards 4.2 ypc

Just as a note, the Vikings had the top run defense in the league last year, so I'd expect those numbers to be slightly depressed.

It's obvious you can't.

Chicago: 36 yards 2.1 ypc - Collins did not start

Giants: 126 yards 5.0 ypc

Minnesota: 76 yards 3.8 ypc

Cowboys: 104 yards 4.2 ypc

Seattle: 52 yards 2.6 ypc

Meanwhile, how do you explain Ladell Betts rushing for 1000 yards at a healthy YPC starting much less than a full season with JASON CAMPBELL, the reason you cite as why Portis struggled? How do you explain Portis stating that he couldn't fulfill his potential because of injuries to the offensive line?

You can't. Instead you'll come up with some more nonsense.

Buzbee at least had one season with the team. He was more of a known than Jackson.

Was he more of a known than Evans? Was he more of a known than Wilson? Buzbee has no game experience period, and you're telling me he was the key reason we traded for Taylor. Because our, at best, NUMBER FIVE defensive end got injured.

This combined with your constant asserting that Portis struggled more because of the QB instead of offensive line injuries just paints you pretty much as going against common sense.

Here's a clue. The reason we traded for Jason Taylor is because our defensive line had no depth. The reason Portis struggled in 2007 was because the offensive line had no depth.

It had nothing to do with Jason Campbell or Buzbee.

If you think he's heads and shoulders better than anyone else on the board at that point, sure.

Jason

And that's the kind of ignorant philosophy that led us to draft Manuel White and Nemo Broughton.

[TheLongshot]

First of all, make up your mind. Was Brunell brought in to be a starter or a veteran backup? You've pretty much flip flopped through this entire thread. If he was brought in as a starter, than Ramsey should have been traded for assets that would've made a huge impact on the team. If he was brought in to be a backup or even to compete for the job, then he shouldn't have been paid that much.

Either way, you lose.

I guess you didn't understand what I said in post #81. Brunell was brought in because really all we had was a relatively unproven QB in Patrick Ramsey who was coming off of injury and nothing else. Any idiot knows that you need at least two QBs to be successful in the NFL, or else if the QB goes down, your season is over.

Brunell probably was going to have the advantage going in because of his experience and that Ramsey was going to be behind because of his recovery from his foot injury. That being said, Brunell was never considered a long-term solution. He was a stopgap while whatever young QB developed behind him.

If you're drafting the BPA in the fourth round instead of addressing areas of need because you're so sure he's heads and shoulders above everyone else... And you're not sure he's going to make the roster, then you need to be fired.

What a nonsensical argument. If you think a player is that good, that automatically makes one think that he could make the team. For example, what made Rock Cartwright and Ladell Betts so damn unassailable in 2005 that a good rookie RB could not unseat them? What had they proven up to that point?

Meanwhile, how do you explain Ladell Betts rushing for 1000 yards at a healthy YPC starting much less than a full season with JASON CAMPBELL, the reason you cite as why Portis struggled? How do you explain Portis stating that he couldn't fulfill his potential because of injuries to the offensive line?

Honestly? It was probably the healthiest that the O-Line was since Portis got here and they were playing lights out. Not to mention that they ran the ball a lot more once Campbell got into the game.

I will actually go back and say that the health of the line did affect his performance last year, and the replacements weren't as good run blockers as the starters. But it wasn't the only reason for Portis' reduced numbers. The fact that teams weren't scared that Campbell would beat them via the pass was also a factor. They could just load up and stop Portis and they knew eventually that someone (probably Campbell) would cough it up.

Was he more of a known than Evans? Was he more of a known than Wilson? Buzbee has no game experience period, and you're telling me he was the key reason we traded for Taylor. Because our, at best, NUMBER FIVE defensive end got injured.

I guess you are blind to the name of Daniels, because I'm sure I've mentioned his name numerous times....

Here's a clue. The reason we traded for Jason Taylor is because our defensive line had no depth. The reason Portis struggled in 2007 was because the offensive line had no depth.

Funny, but I did say the former. Course, we had no depth because we lost two DEs to injury and have one recovering from injury. That probably would hurt any team's depth.

As for the latter, I doubt anyone in the league has backup linemen that can replace two high quality starters like Thomas and Jansen. Overall, they did do a decent job out there.

But, to then say that Campbell had nothing to do with the success or failure of the running game is pretty naive of you.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Do you believe teams actually care where they find their franchise qb?? Whether it be 1st round or 7th round or in the case of Unitas, a street FA??

You're missing the point. Your assertion was that it was a good idea to draft a QB with the INTENT of building around him. Bill Walsh picked Montana and Young because they fit his system. Brady wasn't picked with the INTENT of building around him. He and Bledsoe fit the system Belichick wanted to run. That's the way most perennial winners are built.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your assertion that anybody can play QB as long as they're a good athlete?

I don't know how your question is relevant, but no. I don't think any athlete can play QB, but athleticism is the number one factor to consider when selecting football players at any position in my opinion.

[Oldfan]

It is a fact to franchise Champ that they needed to redo Samuels and Arrington's contracts to get enough cap space to franchise him.

Can you support this assertion you claim is a fact? If I remember the sequence correctly, both Portis and Brunell were signed after the trade for big bucks, so I can't imagine a scenario that would have made it impossible or even difficult to handle Champ's tender.

Well, the reason why we aren't doing it now is because the need to do is is reduced from the fact that we don't have too many positions where we absolutely need to draft an impact player right now.

The reason we aren't routinely trading up the draft, trading picks for vets, and investing heavily in free agency is that those policies failed and we were being laughed at by NFL execs. Gibbs promised us after the 2006 season that we would be reviewing our policies and he kept that promise.

Talk about hyperbole... You talk as if coaches don't work on mechanics much at all.

Sentences that begin with "You talk as if..." or something similar are generally introducing strawman arguments. Yours is not an exception.

[NewCliche21]

Absolutely fantastic thread.

Definitely worthy of the "READ ME:" status.

[guthrieskins82]

GO SKINS! We will defeat the Giants at home... no worries everyone.

[TheLongshot]

Can you support this assertion you claim is a fact? If I remember the sequence correctly, both Portis and Brunell were signed after the trade for big bucks, so I can't imagine a scenario that would have made it impossible or even difficult to handle Champ's tender.

You should know that the Skins usually have a salary of the vet minimum for newly signed players, so impact on the cap was much less than what Champ's one year deal would have been.

I can't seem to track down the article that said that they restructured Samuels and Arrington's deals to get Champ's tender under the cap, but I have found plenty that have said that the tender put the Skins over the cap and that it would be difficult to get help for the team's issues if they didn't trade him.

http://www.sportsgamer.com/forums/nfl-chat/10096-bailey-designated-franchise-player.html

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/lions/2004-02-18-bailey_x.htm

The reason we aren't routinely trading up the draft, trading picks for vets, and investing heavily in free agency is that those policies failed and we were being laughed at by NFL execs. Gibbs promised us after the 2006 season that we would be reviewing our policies and he kept that promise.

Kinda hard to trade picks you didn't have in 2007. Even with the lack of picks, it didn't stop us from trading for Kendall. It also didn't stop us from signing free agents either, giving pretty decent sized deals to Fred Smoot and London Fletcher.

Not much changed philisophically after 2006, because the main problem with 2006 was more about the poor decisionmaking than the philosophy. The team will still be aggressive with the FAs they are interested in, and they have shown that there is no hesitancy in pulling off trades where needed.

The only reason why you see less of them nowadays is that we finally after all of these years have a pretty good roster built, so we don't need to be as aggressive as we have been in the past.

Sentences that begin with "You talk as if..." or something similar are generally introducing strawman arguments. Yours is not an exception.

Ok, let me restate my question: what leads you to believe that what was done with Campbell was "as ambitious a makeover attempt in the history of the NFL"?

I found an article late in 2006 about Saunders and Campbell. It doesn't sound like an "ambitious makeover". What I see there is that they felt that Campbell needed to quicken his delivery. Saunders also thought that Campbell was very capable of doing it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121302031.html

Saunders believes that in the offseason Campbell can tweak the process slightly -- not enough to affect his accuracy or alter his natural throwing motion -- to ensure the ball gets away more quickly.

Yeah, that sounds like a major overhaul.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Jason, this was your claim:

It is a fact to franchise Champ that they needed to redo Samuels and Arrington's contracts to get enough cap space to franchise him.

I asked you to support your claim and you gave me an article which denies it.

The franchise tag keeps Bailey from becoming a free agent when his contract expires next month. It also means the Redskins have to make him a one-year, $6.8 million tender -- the average of the top five players at his position.

That will put the Redskins slightly over the NFL's salary cap. They have to get under the cap by March 3, and they can do so by cutting players. Bruce Smith, who said he would retire after breaking the career sacks record last season, heads the list of probable cuts.

Not much changed philisophically after 2006, because the main problem with 2006 was more about the poor decisionmaking than the philosophy.

Most well-informed Redskins fan reading this will recognize that your statement is false.

Ok, let me restate my question: what leads you to believe that what was done with Campbell was "as ambitious a makeover attempt in the history of the NFL"?

I've been a fan of the NFL for many years. I've never seen or heard of one more extensive.

[TheLongshot]

I asked you to support your claim and you gave me an article which denies it.

It doesn't deny it. All it says is that we could release Bruce Smith to get under the cap. Bruce Smith didn't get released until the next week. I know I read it somewhere and I will continue to look for it. The problem is that the Skins tend to do such restructuring rather quietly.

The bigger point of mine, tho, still stands: The skins had to trade Champ to do anything in FA. The releases above only freed up 10m under the cap, while Champ took up about 6.8m of cap space. Considering the needs that Gibbs inherited, that 10m wasn't going to go far, particularly since space needed to be saved for the draft (a top 10 pick) and emergency signings during the season.

Would sacrificing all of that have been worth it to get a "better" deal? Course, I don't know how much better you would have done to get a guy who has a good chance to be the all time leading rusher for this franchise.

Most well-informed Redskins fan reading this will recognize that your statement is false.

I've been a fan of the NFL for many years. I've never seen or heard of one more extensive.

A couple of very empty, generic statements. Obviously you are tiring of this argument.

Jason

[Shore-skin]

after reading every post in this thread, I think it should be stated that Shilsu and Oldfan are master-debaters, and are never wrong about anything they claim to be true.

*yes I am aware of how many posts I have

[Shilsu]

I guess you didn't understand what I said in post #81. Brunell was brought in because really all we had was a relatively unproven QB in Patrick Ramsey who was coming off of injury and nothing else. Any idiot knows that you need at least two QBs to be successful in the NFL, or else if the QB goes down, your season is over.

Brunell probably was going to have the advantage going in because of his experience and that Ramsey was going to be behind because of his recovery from his foot injury. That being said, Brunell was never considered a long-term solution. He was a stopgap while whatever young QB developed behind him.

Here's what you said in post #81.

TheLongshot: 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.

So if 2.5 years is too long... Then you keep him for one year and pay him $9M? Two years and pay him $5M per year? Keep him three years and pay him $6M per year?

No matter how you spin it, his salary does not match up with what you claim his purpose is, not to mention giving up a draft pick.

What a nonsensical argument. If you think a player is that good, that automatically makes one think that he could make the team. For example, what made Rock Cartwright and Ladell Betts so damn unassailable in 2005 that a good rookie RB could not unseat them? What had they proven up to that point?

Thanks for agreeing with me. If you think a player is that good, you better think that he could make the team. Which goes against what you said previously about assuming someone is going to make the team:

TheLongshot: Course, that's assuming that everyone from your rookie class actually makes the roster, which often doesn't happen.

How you constantly contradict yourself is a disturbing pattern.

Honestly? It was probably the healthiest that the O-Line was since Portis got here and they were playing lights out. Not to mention that they ran the ball a lot more once Campbell got into the game.

I will actually go back and say that the health of the line did affect his performance last year, and the replacements weren't as good run blockers as the starters. But it wasn't the only reason for Portis' reduced numbers. The fact that teams weren't scared that Campbell would beat them via the pass was also a factor. They could just load up and stop Portis and they knew eventually that someone (probably Campbell) would cough it up.

Even though you're still grasping for straws, at least now you admit that the injuries of the offensive line had SOMETHING to do with Portis' struggles. That's a start.

I guess you are blind to the name of Daniels, because I'm sure I've mentioned his name numerous times....

You made the condition Daniels AND Buzbee. But if you're saying without just Daniels our defensive line is in trouble, then great, you once again concede your point.

Funny, but I did say the former. Course, we had no depth because we lost two DEs to injury and have one recovering from injury. That probably would hurt any team's depth.

Nobody's depth is going to be substantially hurt because their #5 DE gets hurt. We had no depth in the first place and that's why we needed to replace Daniels as soon as he got injured.

As for the latter, I doubt anyone in the league has backup linemen that can replace two high quality starters like Thomas and Jansen. Overall, they did do a decent job out there.

But, to then say that Campbell had nothing to do with the success or failure of the running game is pretty naive of you.

Jason

Stop trying to turn it around. Of course the passing game is somewhat interwined with the running game, but you are the naive one who kept arguing that the running game didn't suffer because of injuries. Why you would argue that is beyond anyone's guess, but at least now you admit you are wrong.

Even though you're still making stupid excuses like...

TheLongshot: Clinton Portis couldn't run because of Jason Campbell.

Counterpoint: Ladell Betts had a breakout season running behind Jason Campbell.

TheLongshot: Clinton Portis couldn't run because Todd Collins was unknown.

Counterpoint: Jason Campbell was unknown when Ladell Betts had his breakout season.

TheLongshot: Ladell Betts only did good because they ran the ball a lot more.

Counterpoint: Clinton Portis was having a successful rushing season despite playing with an injury BEFORE Betts took over.

You would think that it had to do with everything else BUT the health of the offensive line until you finally admitted how idiotic your arguments were with this last post.

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot: It doesn't deny it.

You are trying to deny the obvious. The following quotes you supplied are in direct conflict:

It is a fact to franchise Champ that they needed to redo Samuels and Arrington's contracts to get enough cap space to franchise him.

The franchise tag keeps Bailey from becoming a free agent when his contract expires next month. It also means the Redskins have to make him a one-year, $6.8 million tender -- the average of the top five players at his position...That will put the Redskins slightly over the NFL's salary cap. They have to get under the cap by March 3, and they can do so by cutting players. Bruce Smith, who said he would retire after breaking the career sacks record last season, heads the list of probable cuts.

A couple of very empty, generic statements.

I can't make chicken salad out of chicken feathers. You made a statement that most well-informed fans would see as false on its face. Why should I bother debating it? And your question had an obvious answer. What was I supposed to do with that?

[TheLongshot]

Here's what you said in post #81.

TheLongshot: 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.

So if 2.5 years is too long... Then you keep him for one year and pay him $9M? Two years and pay him $5M per year? Keep him three years and pay him $6M per year?

No matter how you spin it, his salary does not match up with what you claim his purpose is, not to mention giving up a draft pick.

Ok, I mispoke here a bit. When I said "play" I meant "start". I expected him to start for maybe 1-2 years and then yield to whichever young guy won the starting job. I knew that Brunell was never going to finish that contract and that he'd probably be here for 3-4 years.

Thanks for agreeing with me. If you think a player is that good, you better think that he could make the team. Which goes against what you said previously about assuming someone is going to make the team:

TheLongshot: Course, that's assuming that everyone from your rookie class actually makes the roster, which often doesn't happen.

How you constantly contradict yourself is a disturbing pattern.

How you keep misreading what I wrote is distrubing. I said "could" make the roster. Just because the team felt highly enough to draft you doesn't mean you are going to make the team. Higher picks tend to get more leeway, but you still need to prove yourself.

Even though you're still grasping for straws, at least now you admit that the injuries of the offensive line had SOMETHING to do with Portis' struggles. That's a start.

To be honest, we went down a tangent that got away from your original point, which is that you think our depth at OL sucks.

I'll point at post #81 again:

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.

You seem to expect that the backups should be as good as the starters. Well, if they were that good, they would be starters someplace. When you replace a starter, most of the time they are going to be deficient in some area where the starter was good at.

You made the condition Daniels AND Buzbee. But if you're saying without just Daniels our defensive line is in trouble, then great, you once again concede your point.

I've always made the condition Daniels AND Buzbee. The original focus was because Daniels went down, we were suddenly desperate with depth. No, it was because both Daniels and Buzbee went down, when combined with the fact that of what is left one guy was still on the PUP recovering from injuries and another is a rookie who wasn't certain to make the team, a pass rushing specialist and Demetric Evans.

Granted, some of that would sort itself out later in the season, but that would have been a risky proposal. Considering that the Skins felt that they were a playoff caliber team, they pulled the trigger.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

I can't make chicken salad out of chicken feathers. You made a statement that most well-informed fans would see as false on its face. Why should I bother debating it? And your question had an obvious answer. What was I supposed to do with that?

Except you haven't pointed out WHY it is false. That's why I call it empty and generic.

I guess you are pointing out one year, this year, where they did nothing in FA and had a bunch of draft picks (mostly from losing free agents) that all of a sudden that they have made a sea change in how they are doing business, when really it is all about where the team is now.

I mean, look at next year's draft, where they've already traded away two picks. Have they really changed their philosophy? I don't think so. They are still very aggressive in trading for players. I'm sure if there is a free agent that they think can make an instant impact they will be aggressive in persuing them. The only thing that hopfully has changed is that they are going to be smarter about it, which they were really only dumb about it in 2006.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Except you haven't pointed out WHY it is false. That's why I call it empty and generic.

I can't point out WHY your perception is false. How do I know why you seem to be able to look at the draft this year and see the same philosophy in play as in past drafts? It was 180 degrees different to me. What could I possibly say to you to change your mind?

How do I argue that you're wrong when you compare the trades for Kendall and Taylor, one per year, and see them as just a continuation of past philosophies?

What can I say when you interpret the free agency moves of 2007 and 2008 as being just as aggressive as we were in 2006?

I can't change your perceptions and If other fans see what I see, I don't need to convince them that you're wrong.

Your perceptions are not something we can debate.

[Shilsu]

Ok, I mispoke here a bit. When I said "play" I meant "start". I expected him to start for maybe 1-2 years and then yield to whichever young guy won the starting job. I knew that Brunell was never going to finish that contract and that he'd probably be here for 3-4 years.

Didn't I just explain to you that if he was here for maybe 1 year, he would be paid $9M, 2 years - $11m, 3 years - $15M and so on. There is no point in his contract where Brunell is not paid as anything more than a long term.

How you keep misreading what I wrote is distrubing. I said "could" make the roster. Just because the team felt highly enough to draft you doesn't mean you are going to make the team. Higher picks tend to get more leeway, but you still need to prove yourself.

How you keep flip flopping is even more disturbing. Let me reiterate, if you are purposely ignoring needs because you graded a player to be head and shoulders above everyone else, you better be sure he makes the roster.

To be honest, we went down a tangent that got away from your original point, which is that you think our depth at OL sucks.

I'll point at post #81 again:

TheLongshot: 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.

You seem to expect that the backups should be as good as the starters. Well, if they were that good, they would be starters someplace. When you replace a starter, most of the time they are going to be deficient in some area where the starter was good at.

First of all, no one is saying our backups should be on the same level as our starters, especially our starting line which is one of the best in the NFL. But they should be COMPETENT.

Second of all, you said our backups did "quite well" in 2007. I showed you proof why they didn't do "quite well" as they were unable to allow an elite back like Clinton Portis to realize his potential by stifling him to less than 4 yards per carry. Then you started spouting nonsense about how it was because of Jason Campbell, Todd Collins, and everyone else except the offensive line.

This is the kind of nonsensical thinking that makes you say dumb stuff like, "How do you quantify that it's easier to gain 5 yards on a passing play than a running play?"

I've always made the condition Daniels AND Buzbee. The original focus was because Daniels went down, we were suddenly desperate with depth. No, it was because both Daniels and Buzbee went down, when combined with the fact that of what is left one guy was still on the PUP recovering from injuries and another is a rookie who wasn't certain to make the team, a pass rushing specialist and Demetric Evans.

Isn't that exactly what I said? I mean seriously...

You are saying if only Daniels went down, it's OK.

But because both Daniels and Buzbee went down, it's not OK.

I'm telling you how stupid that argument is also because Buzbee is a 5th string DE and your argument for why he is so important is because...

TheLongshot: 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.

As if Buzbee is more qualified than any of them?

Granted, some of that would sort itself out later in the season, but that would have been a risky proposal. Considering that the Skins felt that they were a playoff caliber team, they pulled the trigger.

Jason

OK, continue adding things that are nonrelevant.

[Shilsu]

Except you haven't pointed out WHY it is false. That's why I call it empty and generic.

Here's what you said.

TheLongshot: It is a fact to franchise Champ that they needed to redo Samuels and Arrington's contracts to get enough cap space to franchise him.

Here's what the article you provided said.

That will put the Redskins slightly over the NFL's salary cap. They have to get under the cap by March 3, and they can do so by cutting players. Bruce Smith, who said he would retire after breaking the career sacks record last season, heads the list of probable cuts.

The article that YOU PROVIDED says that they can get under the cap through OTHER MEANS than redoing Chris Samuels and Lavar Arrington's contracts.

You said they NEEDED to. The article says they could've done it through other means.

How much more blunt does it get?