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

[TheLongshot]

Your perceptions are not something we can debate.

Hey, if you are just tired of arguing, just say so. Don't make excuses tho, particuarly when there is evidence in my favor.

I do find it funny that guys like you think that the organization had repudiated what they did in the past, when the core of that team was built using those same methods in which this team is succeeding with.

In any case, neither of you are really listening to me anymore, so it is probably time to wrap this up.

Jason

[DirtyGunz8]

"In fact, the legendary Bill Parcells told Cooley to his face that he’d never be more than a backup in the league before the draft."

Bill Parcells is a serious A-hole. I'm glad he over looked him. It's kind of strange Tuna would be so far off the mark considering Witten and Fasano are his guys. oh well. COOOOOOOOOOOLEY. Cooooooooooooool Whip!

[Shilsu]

Hey, if you are just tired of arguing, just say so. Don't make excuses tho, particuarly when there is evidence in my favor.

I do find it funny that guys like you think that the organization had repudiated what they did in the past, when the core of that team was built using those same methods in which this team is succeeding with.

In any case, neither of you are really listening to me anymore, so it is probably time to wrap this up.

Jason

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.

TheLongshot's "Evidence": 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.

Great evidence.

[Oldfan]

Hey, if you are just tired of arguing, just say so. Don't make excuses tho, particuarly when there is evidence in my favor.

You have no "evidence." If you did you would have presented it. These are the same unsupported opinions you have offered before. They are strictly your perception of events. You see it one way, I see it another.

Unlike other claims you've made in this thread, you can't be proven wrong. You see an apple, I see an orange. I can't prove it's an orange.

[TheLongshot]

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.

TheLongshot's "Evidence": 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.

Great evidence.

It didn't matter that I was wrong about that because my point still stood that franchising Champ pushed us over the cap and even with cutting players we were pretty tight against the cap.

Course, you'd rather declare victory over a minor point that didn't really matter in the big scheme of things.

Jason

[Oldfan]

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.

TheLongshot's "Evidence": 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.

Great evidence.

You are confusing two different points that Jason and I were contesting. He didn't respond to my last post on the Bailey argument. The non-response on that point is as close to a concession as we can expect from Jason.

[Shilsu]

It didn't matter that I was wrong about that because my point still stood that franchising Champ pushed us over the cap and even with cutting players we were pretty tight against the cap.

Course, you'd rather declare victory over a minor point that didn't really matter in the big scheme of things.

Jason

It doesn't matter that you were wrong about Champ Bailey.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying that injuries to our offensive line did not have a big effect on Clinton Portis' performance.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying there is no quantifiable way to show that a passing play is more likely to pick up at least 5 yards than a running play.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying that there was nobody who could play DT in the draft range of Fred Davis.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying Mark Brunell's contract was backloaded so he wasn't going to see any money in the first few years of his contract.

It does matter that you were wrong about all of those things.

[TheItalianStallion]

You are confusing two different points that Jason and I were contesting. He didn't respond to my last post on the Bailey argument. The non-response on that point is as close to a concession as we can expect from Jason.

You didn't respond to my post. Am I to take that as a concession?

[Oldfan]

It didn't matter that I was wrong about that because my point still stood that franchising Champ pushed us over the cap and even with cutting players we were pretty tight against the cap.

Course, you'd rather declare victory over a minor point that didn't really matter in the big scheme of things.

Jason

After you shot yourself in the foot on your first claim, you need to tap dance faster than that. Your original point was that the Skins were hard-pressed to liquidate Bailey. You need more than the obvious fact that the tender would put the squeeze on adding another player. Every team using the franchise tag has the same problem.

[Oldfan]

You didn't respond to my post. Am I to take that a a concession?

What post was that?

[TheLongshot]

After you shot yourself in the foot on your first claim, you need to tap dance faster than that. Your original point was that the Skins were hard-pressed to liquidate Bailey. You need more than the obvious fact that the tender would put the squeeze on adding another player. Every team using the franchise tag has the same problem.

Actually, most teams don't because of the way the Skins eat cap space. For example, Buffalo had no problem keeping Nate Clements around an extra year on a franchise tag. A lot are able to keep those franchise players longer because they have the cap space that doesn't hamstring them if they need to do something like that. It is one of the downsides of the way the Skins do business. Course, if you have gotten to the point where you need to franchise players to leverage them, you are probably in trouble anyways. That also includes trading away players.

And yes, I was wrong about that. That's what I get by going by my memory rather than looking it back up again. I also forgot that the cap doesn't count until free agency starts.

But, at least I can admit that I'm wrong. Meanwhile, you seem to think we would have been better off without the players that we did get in 2004 and 2005 via the deals we did make. Players who are part of the core of our success today.

Jason

[TheItalianStallion]

What post was that?

p. 7, #105

[TheLongshot]

It doesn't matter that you were wrong about Champ Bailey.

Wrong in some of the details, but not in the essence.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying that injuries to our offensive line did not have a big effect on Clinton Portis' performance.

I never said his performance wasn't hurt by the replacements, just that the lack of respect of the passing game was also a big factor in the running game performance. Course, with a healthy O-Line, they could run whether or not they respected the passing game, so the line became merely ordinary. Far from "sucking" which was your claim.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying there is no quantifiable way to show that a passing play is more likely to pick up at least 5 yards than a running play.

Considering the fumble in the last game, that question is still up in the air.

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying that there was nobody who could play DT in the draft range of Fred Davis.

I am? Where is the proof for that?

It doesn't matter that you were wrong in saying Mark Brunell's contract was backloaded so he wasn't going to see any money in the first few years of his contract.

Hard to be wrong about something I didn't say. I said that he wasn't going to see the back end of the contract, and once someone solidified the starting position they'd restructure his deal, which is what happened.

It does matter that you were wrong about all of those things.

Your game seems to be to win on niggling points to distract from the larger points, which you are wrong about. Whatever.

Jason

[Shilsu]

Wrong in some of the details, but not in the essence.

I never said his performance wasn't hurt by the replacements, just that the lack of respect of the passing game was also a big factor in the running game performance. Course, with a healthy O-Line, they could run whether or not they respected the passing game, so the line became merely ordinary. Far from "sucking" which was your claim.

Here's what you said when I said Clinton Portis struggled due to injuries.

TheLongshot: 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

Not only are you attempting to rebut my statement, but you made it an either-or statement. Now you're claiming it's a mix. Oh well, as long as you now admit your last statement was wrong.

Considering the fumble in the last game, that question is still up in the air.

I am? Where is the proof for that?

Jason Jones is playing DT for the Titans. So there, proof you were wrong about that.

Hard to be wrong about something I didn't say. I said that he wasn't going to see the back end of the contract, and once someone solidified the starting position they'd restructure his deal, which is what happened.

Here's what you said.

TheLongshot: he wasn't going to see a lot of that value because it was on the back end

So yes, that is something you did say no matter how much you want to deny it. He saw a lot of value on the front end.

Your game seems to be to win on niggling points to distract from the larger points, which you are wrong about. Whatever.

Jason

Okay, so because you are wrong about every single point... You are somehow right? Okay.

[TheLongshot]

Here's what you said when I said Clinton Portis struggled due to injuries.

TheLongshot: 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

Not only are you attempting to rebut my statement, but you made it an either-or statement. Now you're claiming it's a mix. Oh well, as long as you now admit your last statement was wrong.

It was a statement designed to point out that there were other reasons for the lack of production and it is just as valid.

Jason Jones is playing DT for the Titans. So there, proof you were wrong about that.

Jason Jones is as much of a DT as Demetric Evans or Philip Daniels is. He's a DE who can play inside on passing downs. That's not the kind of player the Skins were looking for.

Here's what you said.

TheLongshot: he wasn't going to see a lot of that value because it was on the back end

So yes, that is something you did say no matter how much you want to deny it. He saw a lot of value on the front end.

And there was a lot of value on the back end he wasn't going to see, which was probably the bulk of that total number. Again, you read something in there that I didn't say.

Jason

[Shilsu]

It was a statement designed to point out that there were other reasons for the lack of production and it is just as valid.

You made it an either-or proposition but like I said, I don't care as long as you now admit that injuries to the offensive line hurt Clinton Portis.

Jason Jones is as much of a DT as Demetric Evans or Philip Daniels is. He's a DE who can play inside on passing downs. That's not the kind of player the Skins were looking for.

Wrong again. Jason Jones has been used by the Titans as a DT. He was a DT in his senior year at Eastern Michigan. Not a DE playing inside during pass rushing situations. But a DT. Period. He has played well enough that Titans homers consider him the replacement to Albert Haynesworth should they not resign Haynesworth. They don't consider Jason Jones their future or current DE. They consider Jason Jones their current DT prospect who could become their future monster DT. So please admit you were wrong everytime you said there was no one who could play DT when Fred Davis was taken.

And there was a lot of value on the back end he wasn't going to see, which was probably the bulk of that total number. Again, you read something in there that I didn't say.

Jason

I don't really want to get into semantics, so similar to how you finally admit that Clinton Portis suffered due to injuries on the offensive line, as long as you now admit Mark Brunell was getting paid a significant amount in the front end of the contract for what you claimed was supposed to be structured as a short term contract, I don't care.

[TheLongshot]

You made it an either-or proposition but like I said, I don't care as long as you now admit that injuries to the offensive line hurt Clinton Portis.

As long as you admit that the lack of respect for the passing game was also a factor.

Wrong again. Jason Jones has been used by the Titans as a DT. He was a DT in his senior year at Eastern Michigan. Not a DE playing inside during pass rushing situations. But a DT. Period. He has played well enough that Titans homers consider him the replacement to Albert Haynesworth should they not resign Haynesworth. They don't consider Jason Jones their future or current DE. They consider Jason Jones their current DT prospect who could become their future monster DT. So please admit you were wrong everytime you said there was no one who could play DT when Fred Davis was taken.

Ok, let me restate myself: he wouldn't be a DT here. At 275, he'd be eaten alive as an every-down DT by the OLs of the NFC East. He'd have to gain about 30-40 pounds, and I don't know if he could be effective at that that size.

I don't really want to get into semantics, so similar to how you finally admit that Clinton Portis suffered due to injuries on the offensive line, as long as you now admit Mark Brunell was getting paid a significant amount in the front end of the contract for what you claimed was supposed to be structured as a short term contract, I don't care.

I never disagreed that he didn't get a good chunk of money up front, just that the largest amount of money in the contract was in the back end, and he wasn't likely to see it given his age.

Jason

[Shilsu]

As long as you admit that the lack of respect for the passing game was also a factor.

Ok, let me restate myself: he wouldn't be a DT here. At 275, he'd be eaten alive as an every-down DT by the OLs of the NFC East. He'd have to gain about 30-40 pounds, and I don't know if he could be effective at that that size.

I never disagreed that he didn't get a good chunk of money up front, just that the largest amount of money in the contract was in the back end, and he wasn't likely to see it given his age.

Jason

So now you admit to being wrong in everything you said.

Closure, at last.

[Oldfan]

The Longshot: And yes, I was wrong about that. That's what I get by going by my memory rather than looking it back up again. I also forgot that the cap doesn't count until free agency starts...But, at least I can admit that I'm wrong...

How much are you admitting? Is it fair to assume that you are no longer going to claim that the Skins were forced by extraordinary cap considerations to trade Champ? Bear in mind that, without the "need to liquidate," the argument that we got fair value in trade is seriously compromised.

...Meanwhile, you seem to think we would have been better off without the players that we did get in 2004 and 2005 via the deals we did make. Players who are part of the core of our success today.

"Meanwhile, you seem to think..." is an intro into yet another strawman argument.

No, what I think is that Joe Gibbs came back in 2004 with a personnel plan that was 180 degrees wrong. However, I think that Joe's greatest strength is his impatience with things that aren't working. I think he changed the personnel course after 2006 and we are now on the right track (except for the Jason Taylor trade).

I think we got some good players from Joe's early personnel moves but we paid far too much for them. I think we have C+ talent now, but we have an offense that was designed to work with mediocre talent.

As for the future, I'm waiting patiently to see how well this year's draft class does because, obviously, if the team can't spot young talent, we aren't going anywhere.

[Oldfan]

p. 7, #105

Sorry, I missed that earlier.

VoR said --- 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.

Champ was not going to be released. The Skins put a franchise tag on him and then pulled it after the trade to Denver was made. Had we not traded him, Champ would have played for us (at 6.8 million) or no one.

[TheLongshot]

How much are you admitting? Is it fair to assume that you are no longer going to claim that the Skins were forced by extraordinary cap considerations to trade Champ? Bear in mind that, without the "need to liquidate," the argument that we got fair value in trade is seriously compromised.

And you claim I make strawman arguments...

No, my position isn't weakened at all because the team was still cap strapped. Franchising Champ put us over the cap. The next week, four veterans (Bruce Smith, Jesse Armstead, Bryan Barker and Lional Dalton) were released, freeing up 11m of cap space. So, knowing that Champ's numbers eat into that when the cap went into effect, that's probably about 10m.

Now, in there you need to find 3/4ths of a defensive line, two LBs (because Trotter would be released after June 1st.), a starting CB (because Champ was as good as gone), a veteran QB, a RB, and a TE. 10m isn't a lot to find all of that, especially when you already have a reduced draft because of picks traded away the previous year.

"Meanwhile, you seem to think..." is an intro into yet another strawman argument.

Not really. More like a statement to try to get you to clarify your argument. I'd rather argue about what you actually believe rather than what I think you believe.

No, what I think is that Joe Gibbs came back in 2004 with a personnel plan that was 180 degrees wrong. However, I think that Joe's greatest strength is his impatience with things that aren't working. I think he changed the personnel course after 2006 and we are now on the right track (except for the Jason Taylor trade).

I think we got some good players from Joe's early personnel moves but we paid far too much for them. I think we have C+ talent now, but we have an offense that was designed to work with mediocre talent.

Course, the statement didn't work, since you don't really say what he was "180 degrees wrong" about. You are on record not liking the Portis trade and the Brunell trade so I have to assume those have to be part of your argument. So, what other moves did you think were completely wrong?

C+ talent? Really? Sorry, but I have to give our team at least a B. I thought we had C level talent after all the moves Gibbs made in 2004, and Williams made the defensive players play at an A+ level with his shell game defense. Also, I'm sure Zorn would love to hear that his offense is designed to work with mediocre talent. Somehow, I think he'd take issue with that.

As for the future, I'm waiting patiently to see how well this year's draft class does because, obviously, if the team can't spot young talent, we aren't going anywhere.

I think the FO has proven that they can spot young talent already, even without looking at this year's draft class. Taylor, Cooley, Rogers, Campbell, Macintosh, Montgomery, Golston, Doughty, Landry, Blades, Heyer. All of those players have made big contributions to this team.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Jason, from your previous post, it's now obvious that you don't understand the Strawman Fallacy since you denied yours that was and falsely accused me of one that wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, my position isn't weakened at all because the team was still cap strapped.

That argument fails. Trading your most valuable player for less than he's worth is not a smart way to get cap relief.

You are on record not liking the Portis trade and the Brunell trade so I have to assume those have to be part of your argument. So, what other moves did you think were completely wrong?

We would be a better team now if the Skins had been forbidden by the NFL to make trades. If we had kept our picks and drafted as effectively as they have over the past five drafts, we'd have a better roster today. The Kendall trade was a good one but wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't dumped so many draft picks.

C+ talent? Really? Sorry, but I have to give our team at least a B.

You probably haven't deducted for the age and wear and tear on the O line. Most fans forget that the O line Gibbs inherited was in its prime.

I think the FO has proven that they can spot young talent already, even without looking at this year's draft class. Taylor, Cooley, Rogers, Campbell, Macintosh, Montgomery, Golston, Doughty, Landry, Blades, Heyer. All of those players have made big contributions to this team.

I agree that the recent drafts have produced some good talent, which makes me regret even more the trading away of so many picks. However, if we are going to make the move to elite status, the 2008 draft will tell the story.

Also, I'm sure Zorn would love to hear that his offense is designed to work with mediocre talent. Somehow, I think he'd take issue with that.

And I'm sure it's not news to him. Walsh first used the scheme to get more production from Virgil Carter and a mediocre O line after his best QB was injured.

[Commander Chaaarmnder]

This is a great post, couldn't agree more.

[TheLongshot]

Jason, from your previous post, it's now obvious that you don't understand the Strawman Fallacy since you denied yours that was and falsely accused me of one that wasn't.

I know what a strawman is. My questions are designed for you to clarify your position so that I can avoid strawmans. Unfortunately, you refuse to clarify why Gibbs did things "180 degrees wrong".

That argument fails. Trading your most valuable player for less than he's worth is not a smart way to get cap relief.

Worth is a relative value based on what the market is willing to pay. While you may think a player is worth X, other teams have to agree with you. Also, any trade is going to be contingent on Champ signing a new deal. If he didn't like where he was going, he could just say that he wasn't going to do a deal and that would nix the trade.

As far as I know, there were three teams interested in Bailey: the Lions, the Jets and the Broncos. Detroit's offer never was made public. The Jets rumored offer was three players: Anthony Becht, Lamont Jordan and Shaun Ellis. We know what the Broncos were offering.

While the Jets offer looked decent on the surface, it ends up being mostly trash. Ellis was coming off a career year and hasn't done nearly as well since. Jordan was never able to be the starter some thought he could be, and Becht was a high draft pick that never worked out for the Jets.

Looking at that, I don't think we did too bad in getting a running back who has a good chance to be the top rusher of all time for the Redskins. It is hard to imagine doing better than that.

We would be a better team now if the Skins had been forbidden by the NFL to make trades. If we had kept our picks and drafted as effectively as they have over the past five drafts, we'd have a better roster today. The Kendall trade was a good one but wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't dumped so many draft picks.

That's a big assumption, particularly since we didn't draft all that well on the second day for those first two years. Considering that Denver didn't get much out of Tatum Bell, even relatively high picks can flop on you or not reach their full potential.

I agree with you about Kendall, tho. Had we not have that useless trade for Duckett, we probably would have used one of those picks on a guard.

You probably haven't deducted for the age and wear and tear on the O line. Most fans forget that the O line Gibbs inherited was in its prime.

Yeah, I forgot about that argument. Course, you have to bring it up when that "beat up" line has helped make Portis the leading rusher in the NFL. Makes you look good.

I agree that the recent drafts have produced some good talent, which makes me regret even more the trading away of so many picks. However, if we are going to make the move to elite status, the 2008 draft will tell the story.

Actually, I don't think it will have all that much to do with this year's draft. I don't think the talent on this team has played to their full potential. A lot of it is going to have to be correcting mistakes and executing when we need to.

And I'm sure it's not news to him. Walsh first used the scheme to get more production from Virgil Carter and a mediocre O line after his best QB was injured.

Yes, I know about the origins of the WCO. It doesn't mean it is exclusively for teams with mediocre talent, tho. I'm sure those great 49er teams of the 80s and 90s was full of mediocre talent. :doh:

Jason

[Oldfan]

Jason, you are engaging in some artful dodging in our exchange.

This was your first position on the Bailey trade:

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.

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.

Then, when you were forced to back off that position, we got this:

No, my position isn't weakened at all because the team was still cap strapped.

Even on minor points, your arguments shape-shift. Here, you added the word "exclusively" to change your position:

Also, I'm sure Zorn would love to hear that his offense is designed to work with mediocre talent. Somehow, I think he'd take issue with that.

Yes, I know about the origins of the WCO. It doesn't mean it is exclusively for teams with mediocre talent, tho.