WP: Shapiro...Redskins Finally Got One Right

[Neophyte]

That's a strawman argument. That's not my position.

Your position was that Gibbs was 180 degrees wrong the first three seasons in his approach. I presented a case to indicate that I don't believe that. How do you get straw man out of that?

Because of the economics dictated by NFL policies, the draft has to be the PRIMARY way of building a strong roster. From the draft years 2004 - 2006, Joe Gibbs tried and failed to prove otherwise. He spent too much in free agency, traded up in the draft far too often, and traded too many picks for vets. After the 2006 season, he set us on the right course.

And I say again, Zorn is winning with many of those same players. Is it not reasonable to at least consider that perhaps Gibbs the personel guy was much better than Gibbs the coach the second time around? Maybe, just maybe, if Gibbs had been on his game as much in 2.0 as he was 1.0 those same players would have yielded significantly better results for him, just as they now are for Zorn.

The team has been done pretty well with it's limited draft picks. we would be a better team now if we had not traded so many picks away (2004 - 2006).

That is all conjecture. You are assuming that the picks would have worked out better than guys like Wilson, Molinaro, Palmer and Sartez (just to name 4). The draft is a crap shoot and we all know it. While I am not saying that building through the draft is a bad thing or that the Skins are going the wrong way at the moment, it is damn tough to argue with the results that Zorn is getting with Gibbs' players, many of whom were acquired through FA or trades.

Few of the draft picks are carrying this team right now. On offense you have Campbell and Cooley. On defense you have McIntosh, Golston, Montgomery, Rogers and Landry. That is 6 of 22 starters. So far, with the exception of Horton, this years draft class has done squat. While I am sure that will change with time, I don't see that time being this year with the possible exception of Thomas who might come in the later half of the season if we get lucky. I am speaking only of the picks made under Gibbs, of course. I fully recognize that there are picks from both before and after Gibbs contributing (namely Cartwright, Samuels, Jansen, Thrash, Smoot and Horton).

You can call it whatever you want but that won't change the reality. Gibbs philosophy may not have been good for the longer run but it put a team on the field that is sure winning right now.

[Commander Adama]

Dan Snyder gave Joe Gibbs the reins in 2004 and stepped away. Coming in, Joe's personnel policies were 180 degrees wrong. We were lucky that it only took the draft years 2004-2006 for Joe to realize his mistakes. After the dismal 2006 season, Joe Gibbs put us on a new course, one emphasizing the draft as the primary means of building the roster, and which promises to yield more young talent and greater depth.

During the fist two years of Gibbs Two, Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato were made scapegoats by people lacking the balls and intellectual honesty to blame HOF coach Joe Gibbs for the personnel mistakes.

This I would disagree with. Joe Gibbs built the roster from existing players, free agency, and trades. Once he had a good foundation, he started getting younger players through the draft that could learn under solid veteran's.

[Commander Adama]

Excellent email Kleese! Thanks for posting it.

[Special K]

Hi Kleese,

I just want to say that I enjoyed reading through your email and would be interested if there is ever a response. I also want to say that I agree with your argument that they've "slowly been getting it right." I truly believe that Gibbs greatest give to this franchise in his second stint here was turning our FO around and reteaching people how to draft solid players that could make the core of the future franchise.

I've seen Vinny and Danny called a lot of things these past years, but my respect for them grew immensely with the hiring of Gibbs and allowing Gibbs to help them steer the organization in the right direction. There are a lot lesser men who would not suck up their pride (well of course, lots of money was on the line and little things like that) and realize they needed help...and help in the form of past great.

I think a few years under Gibbs direct tutelage really helped them understand more about the fundamentals of putting together and managing a good team. I did not see the hiring of Zorn as some one "great" and "lucky" pick amongst a recent history of bad picks. Their pick of Zorn I think was partly the culminationof a little wiseness that was instilled by Gibbs (and the fact that they were running out of options. Fast).

I guess the bottom line is that I don't see this pick as some lucky flash in a pan pick, I think it was made with careful thought and decsion and I'm sure some serious hesitation regarding the unknown outcome. And this pick fell right into line with the recent pattern of good picks and FO decisions.

[kleese]

Thanks Keeast-- No response yet. I email the WP folks fairly regularly regarding their coverage, and I must say that JLC always responds quickly and politely.

[Oldfan]

This I would disagree with. Joe Gibbs built the roster from existing players, free agency, and trades. Once he had a good foundation, he started getting younger players through the draft that could learn under solid veteran's.

That's a weak argument attempting to justify the shift in the team's personnel policies.

Joe Gibbs' disdain for the draft as the primary means of building a roster can be traced back to his break with Bobby Beathard in Gibbs One.

He changed his mind only after the dismal 2006 season when he promised us he'd review everything we were doing and make some changes.

The problem with his approach is that you can't afford to miss on players like Lloyd and Archuleta. There's no margin for error.

[TheLongshot]

That's a weak argument attempting to justify the shift in the team's personnel policies.

Translation: it doesn't fit my argument that Gibbs was 180 degrees wrong, so therefore I reject it out of hand and deny all the evidence to the contrary.

Joe Gibbs' disdain for the draft as the primary means of building a roster can be traced back to his break with Bobby Beathard in Gibbs One.

Wha? Sorry, Gibbs didn't suddenly turn into George Allen when Beathard left. The skins still had pretty full drafts. If anything, Casserly's downfall was the inability to move around in the draft to find good players. His second day picks were mostly headscratchers even after you read the player bios.

He changed his mind only after the dismal 2006 season when he promised us he'd review everything we were doing and make some changes.

The problem with his approach is that you can't afford to miss on players like Lloyd and Archuleta. There's no margin for error.

You are right that you can't afford to miss on trades and big FA signings. The solution they came up with after the 2006 season was to go after players that they were more familiar with, like Smoot and Fletcher. I don't call that a 180 degree change. That's actually going back to the roots of the 2004 season where they did do some of that.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Neophyte: Your position was that Gibbs was 180 degrees wrong the first three seasons in his approach. I presented a case to indicate that I don't believe that. How do you get straw man out of that?

I didn't get a strawman out of that. I got it out of the sentence I quoted. This one:

Neophyte: OF, you act like the first two years were a complete waste which I just can't fathom.

And I say again, Zorn is winning with many of those same players. Is it not reasonable to at least consider that perhaps Gibbs the personel guy was much better than Gibbs the coach the second time around? Maybe, just maybe, if Gibbs had been on his game as much in 2.0 as he was 1.0 those same players would have yielded significantly better results for him, just as they now are for Zorn.

Yes, it's "reasonable to at least consider..." just about any possible explanation -- but we should settle on those that are most likely to be true.

Jim Zorn has made Jason Campbell a better QB and Bill Walsh's WCO was designed to get more production from mediocre talent. These two factors are more likely responsible for our first half success than concluding that the talent on our team is better than we thought it was.

That is all conjecture. You are assuming that the picks would have worked out better than guys like Wilson, Molinaro, Palmer and Sartez (just to name 4). The draft is a crap shoot and we all know it...

It is not mere conjecture to assume that the front office, which has a very good record with the draft picks kept (2004 - 2007) would have done as well with the picks that were traded away. So, it's reasonable to assume that we would have a younger, deeper roster now if Joe Gibbs hadn't tried to get rich quick via free agency, trades and routinely trading up in the draft (2004 - 2006).

[Oldfan]

Translation: it doesn't fit my argument that Gibbs was 180 degrees wrong, so therefore I reject it out of hand and deny all the evidence to the contrary.

Translation: I can't think of a valid point to make on my opponent's argument, so I'll slam my opponent.

Wha? Sorry, Gibbs didn't suddenly turn into George Allen when Beathard left.

Joe's conflicts with Beathard led to Beathard leaving. JKC supported Gibbs on trades for vets like Gerald Riggs.

You are right that you can't afford to miss on trades and big FA signings. The solution they came up with after the 2006 season was to go after players that they were more familiar with, like Smoot and Fletcher. I don't call that a 180 degree change. That's actually going back to the roots of the 2004 season where they did do some of that.

Studies have shown that rounds two, three and four of the draft have produced the best returns -- performance bargains. From 2004 - 2006, we dumped most of those picks in trades for vets or by trading up. That's 180 degrees wrong.

Here's a link to economist K. Hasset's article on the unwise Redskins policies.

[Neophyte]

I didn't get a strawman out of that. I got it out of the sentence I quoted. This one:

Right, you picked on sentence out of my entire post, called it a straw man, and ignored the rest which you did not want to deal with because there was good way to refute it.

Yes, it's "reasonable to at least consider..." just about any possible explanation -- but we should settle on those that are most likely to be true.

Jim Zorn has made Jason Campbell a better QB and Bill Walsh's WCO was designed to get more production from mediocre talent. These two factors are more likely responsible for our first half success than concluding that the talent on our team is better than we thought it was.

Which just another way to say that Zorn is doing a better job of coaching, is it not? He has put the players he has in a position to win.

Oh, and it isn't a pure WCO either. He is killing people with Gibbs running game which is about talent.

It is not mere conjecture to assume that the front office, which has a very good record with the draft picks kept (2004 - 2007) would have done as well with the picks that were traded away. So, it's reasonable to assume that we would have a younger, deeper roster now if Joe Gibbs hadn't tried to get rich quick via free agency, trades and routinely trading up in the draft (2004 - 2006).

A very good record? Are you looking at the same figures I am looking at?

2004 - 2 out of 4 picks worked (Taylor and Cooley)

2005 - 2 out of 5 picks hit (Rogers and Campbell)

2006 - 4 out of 6 picks hit (McIntosh, Montgomery, Doughty and Golston)

2007 - 2 out of 5 picks hit (Landry and Blades)

That is 10 out of 20 picks or exactly 50%. I will be honest and tell you that I don't know how that compares with the rest of the league. My guess is that is bad compared to some teams (Patriots, Colts) and good compared to some teams (Cardinels, 49ers, Raiders) but that is just an educated guess with no research behind it.

I will also grant you that they did a good job of hitting with high round picks and not drafting busts in those positions like so many other teams do.

And you can also argue that most of these guys are Williams picks, not Gibbs, as we know he had a huge amount input into defensive player selection. If he didn't want them, they didn't show up here.

I will grant that trading for Brunell and Lloyd hurt. But I think if Gibbs had not pulled the trigger on those two deals fans here would view his front office moves very differently. Those two trades cost us at least two picks which could be legitimatly argued would be starter for this Zorn team (the 3rd for Brunell and the 3rd for Lloyd) and I won't fight over it. I disliked both moves at the time and am still unhappy with them.

But for the most part, I can't argue with the success Gibbs had in his moves and I think the success of his defenses those 4 years and the current success of his offense prove the moves were pretty good if only all the coaching had been up to snuff.

[TheLongshot]

Translation: I can't think of a valid point to make on my opponent's argument, so I'll slam my opponent.

Joe's conflicts with Beathard led to Beathard leaving. JKC supported Gibbs on trades for vets like Gerald Riggs.

And Earnest Byner, Tim Johnson and Erik Williams. All four were key contributors to the 1992 Superbowl team. What's your point?

Studies have shown that rounds two, three and four of the draft have produced the best returns -- performance bargains. From 2004 - 2006, we dumped most of those picks in trades for vets or by trading up. That's 180 degrees wrong.

Yet, our results from most of those trades have been pretty good, which just goes to show that there are exceptions to what is considered best practices.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Neophyte: Right, you picked on sentence out of my entire post, called it a straw man...

Yes, because the sentence made a strawman argument.

...and ignored the rest which you did not want to deal with because there was good way to refute it.

Not true. Go back and read my post.

Which just another way to say that Zorn is doing a better job of coaching, is it not? He has put the players he has in a position to win.

Okay, I see that. I'll concede that point.

Oh, and it [the running game] isn't a pure WCO either.

The WCO is more a philosophy. It doesn't have a prescribed running game.

He is killing people with Gibbs running game which is about talent.

In 2006, Gibbs and Saunders, following the NFL trend, went to mostly zone-blocking the run (Denver)

A very good record? Are you looking at the same figures I am looking at?

2004 - 2 out of 4 picks worked (Taylor and Cooley)

2005 - 2 out of 5 picks hit (Rogers and Campbell)

2006 - 4 out of 6 picks hit (McIntosh, Montgomery, Doughty and Golston)

2007 - 2 out of 5 picks hit (Landry and Blades)

That is 10 out of 20 picks or exactly 50%. I will be honest and tell you that I don't know how that compares with the rest of the league

.

You can't use that 50% mark to compare since the Skins traded away so many picks in rounds two through four which obviously should yield a higher percentage than rounds five through seven, most of which they kept. Overall, I think 60% is a high mark.

[Neophyte]

Not true. Go back and read my post.

It is true. You went off on "NFL economics" rather than address my point that more of Gibbs moves worked than did not work. I don't recall economics being part of this discussion before that point. I doubt I would have gotten into this discussion if it had been.

The WCO is more a philosophy. It doesn't have a prescribed running game.

My point is that not only does it not have a "prescribed" running game, it often does not have one worth talking about (with rare exceptions like Seattle during the Alexander hayday years).

In 2006, Gibbs and Saunders, following the NFL trend, went to mostly zone-blocking the run (Denver)

No argument. I am just saying that Zorn did not change the running scheme at all from what Gibbs was running basically the last 3 years.

You can't use that 50% mark to compare since the Skins traded away so many picks in rounds two through four which obviously should yield a higher percentage than rounds five through seven, most of which they kept. Overall, I think 60% is a high mark.

These are the only numbers we have to work with. There is no way to guess what the record would have been if they had kept more picks. To quote Parcells "You are what your record is" and the Skins draft record during the Gibbs is 50%.

I will grant they never missed on a high draft pick which would seem to indicate that their record would have improved had more of those been kept but following that line they likely would have kept more of the low end picks too and those don't seem to do so well.

I think you have to consider what they got for those draft picks though. In hind sight Cooley was worth a 2nd which is what we gave to move up. Campbell is turning into the best of his QB class and if he continues to improve at the same rate maybe the best of several classes in a 3 or 4 year span with the possible exception of Cutler. McIntosh is doing well also and likely would be even better if not for the injury. Again, the only picks I really regret at this point are the 3rds involved in the Lloyd and Brunell deals. Those I want back and, of course, getting the one for Brunell back would give us the 2nd the next year back because we could have used that 3rd on Cooley without trading up.

I would agree (at a guess cause I have not done the research yet but I am going to try to do some) that 60% is probably a pretty good mark.

[Oldfan]

And Earnest Byner, Tim Johnson and Erik Williams. All four were key contributors to the 1992 Superbowl team. What's your point?

Well, my point was certainly not to engage you in a silly exchange on which trades worked out well 20 years ago.

I gave you Gerald Riggs as an example of the kind of trade which caused the rift between Gibbs and Beathard -- evidence that Joe's philosophical disdain for the draft and preference for veterans preceded his return in 2004. He also signaled his penchant for trading up in the draft for players he coveted by spending two #1s for Desmond Howard -- a wasteful practice he continued after his return.

Yet, our results from most of those trades have been pretty good, which just goes to show that there are exceptions to what is considered best practices.

Yes there are exceptions to best practices. The Kendall trade is the only one I can think of.

[fansince62]

Your timeline is all wrong. The first year came off a 5-11 season. They were a poor team with no QB. Everyone got a free pass the first year.

The second year they went 10-6. That was the best season they had since Snyder bought the team in 99. So obviously you don't need a free pass for that.

The bad year was the third year. I had no idea what they were doing that year. And it was not just Gibbs. Vinny, Gibbs and the scouting staff all dropped the ball.

Last year they had so many injuries, death and they still made the playoffs.

People revise history. I think in your mind you were expecting magic. Truth is Joe Gibbs is human. Even Phil Jackson when he came back to the Lakers did not start winning until the 4th year. You need talent, health and luck.

you might recall that that 3rd year was horrendous because the secondary was decimated. the defense was a sieve with everything poring through.

[fansince62]

That's a weak argument attempting to justify the shift in the team's personnel policies.

Joe Gibbs' disdain for the draft as the primary means of building a roster can be traced back to his break with Bobby Beathard in Gibbs One.

He changed his mind only after the dismal 2006 season when he promised us he'd review everything we were doing and make some changes.

The problem with his approach is that you can't afford to miss on players like Lloyd and Archuleta. There's no margin for error.

how do you know that he was not charged by Snyder (and perhaps self-imposed) to "win now". that goal leads in a different direction from a draft based approach which requires several years to mature.

[JoeGibbsRypenGClark91]

how do you know that he was not charged by Snyder (and perhaps self-imposed) to "win now". that goal leads in a different direction from a draft based approach which requires several years to mature.

That is more logical since Snyder is the one that showed he wanted to trade the draft picks for guys like Coles, Chad Morton, and Trung Canidate in the immediate year before they got Gibbs.

The whole Snyder gave Gibbs the keys to the kingdome and left is a bunch of bull.

Snyder and Gibbs both admitted it was like a partnership. They made decesions together.

Snyders office was right next to Gibbs. Gibbs had a lot of blame for the bad things because he had final say on the team. But its foolish to say his decesions were not influenced.

[Oldfan]

Neophyte: It is true. You went off on "NFL economics" rather than address my point that more of Gibbs moves worked than did not work. I don't recall economics being part of this discussion before that point. I doubt I would have gotten into this discussion if it had been.

Alright, let me return to address your point.

Your opinion that "more Gibbs moves worked than did not work" is based on the fact that most of the players traded for turned out to be useful. In my opinion, very few were good moves because we gave up too much in draft picks or hits on the cap for the players involved. And that's where my remarks about "NFL economics" comes into play.

The best strategy for building a grade A NFL roster is to try to make every transaction a bargain for the same reason that you can expect to have a better wardrobe if you try to find bargains with every transaction when you shop for clothing on a budget. The salary cap is a budget.

[Oldfan]

how do you know that he was not charged by Snyder (and perhaps self-imposed) to "win now". that goal leads in a different direction from a draft based approach which requires several years to mature.

Oh, I think he wanted to win right away. Otherwise, the smart thing would have been to play the hand dealt to get a better read on the talent on hand.

I think the 2006 meltdown was the best thing that could have happened to our organization. Joe hates to lose and he's impatient with things that don't work. That's his greatest strength.

[Neophyte]

Alright, let me return to address your point.

Your opinion that "more Gibbs moves worked than did not work" is based on the fact that most of the players traded for turned out to be useful. In my opinion, very few were good moves because we gave up too much in draft picks or hits on the cap for the players involved. And that's where my remarks about "NFL economics" comes into play.

The best strategy for building a grade A NFL roster is to try to make every transaction a bargain for the same reason that you can expect to have a better wardrobe if you try to find bargains with every transaction when you shop for clothing on a budget. The salary cap is a budget.

Alright. Put in those terms I am more likely to agree with you somewhat, although I can't agree completely. I think in a number of cases, Gibbs did the best he could with a bad hand (the Bailey-Portis trade comes to mind, as does the Coles-Moss trade).

I would agree that he (or Williams depending on which side of the ball the player was on) reached in a few cases though. I have already mentioned Brunell, who I think they could have had for free rather than give up the 3rd, and Lloyd who I would not have gone after for half the financial cost even if no draft picks had been involved. AA is another example.

I do think that long term several of the guys were great pick ups though and better than we likely could have done through the draft at the time. I am thinking of guys like Griffin, Fletcher, Rabach, Daniels, Evans and Thrash. D-lineman are so hit or miss in the draft that it just isn't funny. Same goes for WR (as we are seeing this year) and Fletcher is just a no brainer.

I guess if you look at things in a vacuum then one has to agree with you but I can't do that. I remember how little talent was present on this team when Gibbs took over from the Spurrier experiment and how low the moral was. Even the players we wanted to keep needed a lot of coaching to overcome the issues they had from the 2 previous years. Add to that the fact that Gibbs was already in his 60s so was on a win now track and I can't blame him for trying to turn the talent level around in a hurry.

[TheLongshot]

Well, my point was certainly not to engage you in a silly exchange on which trades worked out well 20 years ago.

I gave you Gerald Riggs as an example of the kind of trade which caused the rift between Gibbs and Beathard -- evidence that Joe's philosophical disdain for the draft and preference for veterans preceded his return in 2004. He also signaled his penchant for trading up in the draft for players he coveted by spending two #1s for Desmond Howard -- a wasteful practice he continued after his return.

Ironic that you use a running back as an example, since in the past 30 years there has only been one RB that we have drafted who had a major impact for multiple seasons, and that's Stephen Davis. All the others came from other teams. Food for thought.

Saying that Gibbs had "distain for the draft" is a serious reach on your part. I always thought the argument was weak at best that just because they traded draft picks that Gibbs didn't value them.

Yes there are exceptions to best practices. The Kendall trade is the only one I can think of.

But not the guy leading the league in rushing or the guy who is without an interception, or the Pro Bowl TE? OK....

Jason

[TheLongshot]

I would agree that he (or Williams depending on which side of the ball the player was on) reached in a few cases though. I have already mentioned Brunell, who I think they could have had for free rather than give up the 3rd, and Lloyd who I would not have gone after for half the financial cost even if no draft picks had been involved. AA is another example.

Brunell wasn't going to be available for free. He was the only starting-caliber QB who was going to be available in FA for a while (Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia didn't come available until after June 1st.) and there were definite trade rumors from those who were interested. But, just think of it logically: would a team offer a 3rd round pick for a guy who didn't have other suitors and was going to be released? Probably not. It tells me that there were serious trade offers on the table for him.

As for Lloyd, they were probably thinking that it worked so well with Santana to give the big contract, but I think they seriously misjudged his attitude. Course, they made similar blunders that year with other players.

Jason

[Neophyte]

Brunell wasn't going to be available for free. He was the only starting-caliber QB who was going to be available in FA for a while (Kurt Warner and Jeff Garcia didn't come available until after June 1st.) and there were definite trade rumors from those who were interested. But, just think of it logically: would a team offer a 3rd round pick for a guy who didn't have other suitors and was going to be released? Probably not. It tells me that there were serious trade offers on the table for him.

You and I have very different recollections of this. I don't remember any rumors of anyone else being interested at all. In fact, all the talk after the trade itself was how the Skins gave up a pick for a guy they could have had for free and most of the league considered to be done.

But I admit I could be engaging in some revisionist history. I don't know for sure but I know for sure what I remember, if that makes sense.

And yeah, I see Gibbs giving up a 3rd for the guy if he thought that guy was THE guy he had to have to make the offense go.

[TheLongshot]

You and I have very different recollections of this. I don't remember any rumors of anyone else being interested at all. In fact, all the talk after the trade itself was how the Skins gave up a pick for a guy they could have had for free and most of the league considered to be done.

The problem with the trade market is that we the public doesn't know about most of the trade offers. Usually, the only one that gets published is the one that does get made.

Also, for a guy who the league considered "done" 4 years ago, he certainly drew a lot of interest this offseason as a backup, since both New Orleans and Green Bay were interested. I also found a rumor of the Seahawks enquiring about Brunell last year.

And yeah, I see Gibbs giving up a 3rd for the guy if he thought that guy was THE guy he had to have to make the offense go.

There is that too. Course, considering that Ramsey was coming off of a foot injury and wasn't a sure thing, someone else needed to be brought in. We've seen in the past what happens when a new head coach rolls the dice with just one option at QB with Marty and Jeff George, and we know it can be pretty ugly.

Jason

[Temple]

If you are going to bash Snyder and company for their misguided signings and draft picks in the past, then you must give them credit for the players brought in by Gibbs. Santana Moss, Clinton Portis, Chris Cooley, Jason Campbell, Randy Thomas, Pete Kendall, Rocky McIntosh, Carlos Rogers, Sean Taylor, etc.. are all high-level players brought in over the past 4-5 years. And it also appears the Redskins may be making great strides in identifying late-round and free agent talent (Chris Horton, Lorenzo Alexander, Stephon Heyer).

Randy Thomas wasn't a Gibbs signing, he came in during the Jets RFA/UFA splurge of 2003...under coach Steve Spurrier.

Thomas definitely played like a hog (when he was healthy) for Joe Gibbs, but he wasn't Gibbs' signing.:2cents: