RIDETHEWALRUS Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 There is often commentary here about how poorly we draft, or how we let our guys go. I do not contest this point. The question I ask is, does our ability to bring back home players that we drafted, who found temporary fat checks elsewhere, mean we have been at least mildly successful drafting? At the end of the day, if a guy needs 2 years away from fed ex and we don't need to over pay them to play here after that, were they a good draft pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy2Der Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yeah I think so because at least even if the organization wasn't able to sign them the first time they left and saw that the grass wasn't greener on the other side and returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Well, it's interesting to see that these two draft picks of ours (Smoot and Dockery) are almost identical in their situations. Both had outstanding years during their contract years, we missed signing them to long term deals before their contract years were up (although that may have more to do with the players themselves along with their agents than our FO), both were signed to contracts that they didn't really deserve, and both ended up getting cut by their teams a couple years later only to "come home". It's actually pretty amazing when you think about it, and I think it's unprecedented. But yeah, they're both good draft picks and I think it does count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Of course they count! We don't have enough good ones to hold up and say, "See!" about, do you think we as fans are gonna turn our noses up to guys who leave and come back to the fold later on????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyro281 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yeah, they count. And with Dockery, we got the hometown discount AND a draft pick for him bailing for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 it's shows some smarts by the FO to not overpay,but it also says something when you won't overpay for hometown talent,but you'll overpay scrubs like archuletta and Blloyd. It's nice though that we got them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Regardless that he went for the money, it shows you that the redskins treat their players right in negotiations and etc. Smoot and Dockery come back. Thats unheard these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Yeah, they count. And with Dockery, we got the hometown discount AND a draft pick for him bailing for 2 years. How do you figure this? We had to give up two draft picks for Pete Kendall because we had no one on the roster to fill the open position when Dockery left. That means in the end we lost a draft pick in the deal. We could have locked him up with similar money to what we just paid if we had just offered it to him before that final season. Too me it was a good draft pick but poorly managed when it came time to extend him. In fact, we goofed with both Dockery and Smoot. Getting them back is great but we never should have lost them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Our problem hasn't been drafting poor talent but not having enough picks so we can find that diamond in the rough. Gibbs was a targeter and even when we have used a BPA-based strategy, we haven't had enough picks for that to work. Good drafting is as much (maybe more) a numbers game as anything. We also haven't done that well in finding guys off the NFL scrap heap and when we do, those are the guys we lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 MAYBE we should have locked up both players early. Dunno their contract situations then, and hindsight being 20/20. Certainly the cost of replacing them during their absences should factor into how "great" it was we let them go. Doesn't take away from their being good picks, and at least our FO didn't overspend to keep them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyro281 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 How do you figure this? We had to give up two draft picks for Pete Kendall because we had no one on the roster to fill the open position when Dockery left. That means in the end we lost a draft pick in the deal. We could have locked him up with similar money to what we just paid if we had just offered it to him before that final season. Actually, we only gave up 1 draft pick for ol' Pete. It wasn't a 4th AND 5th, it was a 4th OR 5th. It ended up being a 4th, and we got a 3rd when Doc left. So we did come out slightly ahead (depending on if Rino pans out). Too me it was a good draft pick but poorly managed when it came time to extend him. In fact, we goofed with both Dockery and Smoot. Getting them back is great but we never should have lost them in the first place. I agree we shouldn't have lost them, but much as I love Doc, he ain't worth $7+million a year, I mean let's be honest he's no Steve Hutchinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardSkins88 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 In my opinion, fred smoot leaving actually helped out our franchise a great deal, because if we signed him to the long term deal after his contract then we most likely would not have drafted carlos rogers. Everything happens for a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloffs Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 In my opinion, fred smoot leaving actually helped out our franchise a great deal, because if we signed him to the long term deal after his contract then we most likely would not have drafted carlos rogers. Everything happens for a reason Rogers is a good corner. However, he's not a dangerous corner. If we didn't NEED a corner in that draft, we could've picked up someone like Ware or Merriman. Instead, we have a gimpy McIntosh and nobody to play opposite to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.