#98QBKiller Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 3 33 96 Chad Rinehart G Northern Iowa - I'm saying bust but who knows I've said it a million times this week but I'll say it again, this kid was mauling defenders on Sunday and he was pushing guys back in pass pro too. If he can be consistent, this might be a very good pick. Not to mention, I think that the 2008 receivers (including Davis) have a lot of talent, but it's not going to come out if they're constantly taken in and out of the starting lineup every week. I think we're starting to see what they have now that they're all taking the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgbkabkab Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I think though, there are degrees of "success" when it comes to the draft. Let's say that 10 drafted players becoming starters for your team is considered "good" by NFL standards. If the Redskins' 10 players are mediocre starters while Steelers' 10 players include Pro Bowlers, shouldn't that be considered different degrees of success? True. But if you really look at thr last 10 years compared to other teams, it seems that we have had one of the best if not the best decade. We really had strong players drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michiskin Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 If you are gonna bash Vinny for 2004 through 2007, you might as well bash Gibbs too. I bet he had just as much to do with those picks as Vinny did. You are right though. A lot of head scratchers. One that pisses me off to no end is when we could have drafted Mason Crosby in the sixth round a couple of years ago and solved our 15-year-old kicking problem. Instead we drafted a couple of teflon linebackers (they didn't stick). Suisham has been pretty good this year, and maybe he's turned the corner... but Crosby is a stud. EDIT: Okay, i just double-checked Crosby's stats. Maybe he's not a total stud, but I still think he would have been worth a sixth-round pick. Hopefully Suisham renders it a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 If you are gonna bash Vinny for 2004 through 2007, you might as well bash Gibbs too. I bet he had just as much to do with those picks as Vinny did. Well according to others here, they seem to believe that Joe Gibbs made ALL of the selections during those years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Cerratto has picked some excellent players. Cerratto has also picked lousy players. But 2008 was a bad draft for him. He should have chosen Devin Thomas, and two offensive lineman. I like Malcolm Kelly and Fred Davis, but the Redskins didn't need either one of them. Which two offensive linemen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteranskinsfan Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I don't want to hear how Gibbs is just at fault as Vinny. Look at what Vinny has come up with the past few years without Gibbs. I do not want to give Vinny another off-season to screw up. He got no offensive linemen for several years now and over paid for number 92 on defense this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Vinny was hired AFTER the 1999 season...Casserly was fired June 1999. AFTER he drafted Bailey and came away with a bunch of extra picks for the next season. Arrington, Samuels, Sean Taylor, Brian Orakpo were ALL no-brainers... You know... if Orakpo was such a "no-brainer" then why did 12 other teams pass on him? It was a coup getting him at 13. A less patient GM would have sold the farm to move up and get him after Sanchez was taken.2004-2007 weren't run by the coaches... it was a group effort and they get their info for their rankings... Gibbs even said it was structured with Owner-Vinny-Head Coach... YOU just can't pin those drafts on "the coaches" They have no time to scout... That's not true at all. Every indication is that the coaches were heavily involved in the evaluation, scouting, and interview process. Gibbs flew down himself to look at Campbell in person and he's the one who talked to Tuberville.We have no idea who's decision most of those draft picks were. But we do have reports that certain players were favorites for certain coaches: Campbell was Gibbs' man, Landry was Williams' boy, etc. Plus there is a pattern of reaching for need and pick trading from 2004-2007 that Vinny hasn't demonstrated in 08-09. The only significant deal Cerrato's made for future picks in that time has been the Jason Taylor trade. Vinny is firmly BPA in his philosophy which makes me think that the '05 and '06 drafts were mostly Gibbs. You can't call the McIntosh, Campbell, and Rogers picks anything but reaches to fill a need with a starter. All three of them were projected by guys like Kiper to go later than we took them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I don't want to hear how Gibbs is just at fault as Vinny. Look at what Vinny has come up with the past few years without Gibbs. I do not want to give Vinny another off-season to screw up. He got no offensive linemen for several years now and over paid for number 92 on defense this year. Signing Haynesworth was a bad thing? Are you watching the games? He's been easily our best player so far. Not only that, Deangelo has been our best corner, Dockery has been our best offensive lineman, and Hunter Smith has been our best special teamer. For not having a second round pick and almost no cap space, Vinny's 2009 offseason was pretty remarkable. As for his drafts, the Orakpo pick was a home run and the trade down in 2008 was a thing of beauty. We gained a second round pick and still got the guy we would have picked in the first anyway. Vinny's handled to draft well the past two years and I think we're much better off with him running things than we were before. 2006 is about the only impressive class after 2000 and before 2008 and we didn't exactly get any stars from it. What offensive linemen should we have taken either in free agency or the draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Signing Haynesworth was a bad thing? Are you watching the games? He's been easily our best player so far. Not only that, Deangelo has been our best corner, Dockery has been our best offensive lineman, and Hunter Smith has been our best special teamer. For not having a second round pick and almost no cap space, Vinny's 2009 offseason was pretty remarkable. He didn't at all say it was "a bad thing" - he said we overpaid. This is one of THE biggest problems the Redskins have right now. Overpaying. So it doesn't matter if we get a great player, if we overpay to get them. I don't know if we could have gotten Big Al for less or not, but I do know that overpaying in general has to stop. Hunter finally solidifies a punter position that has been very much in flux and somehow managed to cost us a draft pick recently as well. The trade down enabled Atlanta to get Sam Baker who has been a major contributor in Atlanta's successes the last couple of years. I agreed with the trade down last year, but I'm not someone who does draft boards or anything like that. We ended up getting a ton of receivers the past two years, and I think we found out how useful that is this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Joe Gibbs left a playoff team... with a young QB/RB and a good defense....Vinny has had TWO offseasons to address an aging and thin offensive line. He has failed to do so. Joe Gibbs left a team that finished 9-8. It wasn't exactly a powerhouse. Not only that, it was one of, if not the oldest and most expensive roster in the league. As for the RB, Portis was a 6 year veteran and hardly young and Campbell was a QB drafted to play in an Air Coryell offense who had to make a large and difficult transition to a Holmgren WCO. That defense had 5 starters over 30. You're kidding yourself if you think we were in great shape for a smooth regime change. Again, what specifically would you have had him do about our offensive line? Can you give me specific names of guys we should have acquired and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I agreed with the trade down last year, but I'm not someone who does draft boards or anything like that. To clarify this - I didn't realize we would end up getting 3 pass catchers with the trade down. I honestly thought we were going to get a bunch of OL (and there were guards taken in that second round, who have been contributing for their teams). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 He didn't at all say it was "a bad thing" - he said we overpaid. This is one of THE biggest problems the Redskins have right now. Overpaying. So it doesn't matter if we get a great player, if we overpay to get them. I don't know if we could have gotten Big Al for less or not, but I do know that overpaying in general has to stop.Hunter finally solidifies a punter position that has been very much in flux and somehow managed to cost us a draft pick recently as well. I don't understand what you mean by overpaying. We pay what the market demands. Hall got deals in step with Dominique Foxworth and Bryant McFadden and he's been better than they have this season. In the case of Foxworth, he's been much better. Haynesworth said publicly that the Bucs had offered him as much if not more as we signed him for. DeMarcus Ware just signed a deal that's just about as expensive per year as Haynesworth and Jerome Harrison and Terrell Suggs aren't far behind in their money. Nnamdi Asomugha's deal is even more expensive per year and Julius Peppers is one of the highest paid players in the league this year and he figures to get a gigantic contract from somebody this off season. This 16 million a year is the money that the top defensive players make now. If you want one on your team while he's in his prime, then it's what you have to pay. If you think we overpaid for Haynesworth, then that means you prefer that we hadn't signed him. If the reports about what the Bucs offered is true then we weren't going to get Albert for much cheaper. I can't agree that we'd be better off without Haynesworth on our roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I think Roger McIntosh belongs in the "who?" category. HAHA. That is his real name though. His momma didn't christen him Rocky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 If you think we overpaid for Haynesworth, then that means you prefer that we hadn't signed him. If the reports about what the Bucs offered is true then we weren't going to get Albert for much cheaper. I can't agree that we'd be better off without Haynesworth on our roster. It's late, I'm not going to bother quoting his post for you, but he literally said we "over paid" for Haynesworth (that is as much a quote as you get, since he used that space between over and paid). But anyway, I was careful with my words, I said I'm not sure he would have taken less, which means in my opinion, I don't know if we literally overpaid for him. In general, we end up with contracts that limit our ability to sign solid depth and we become top-heavy (over the past few years this has been a pattern, but we may be breaking it now). Hopefully to some degree this will change. To me, there were some fateful decisions in the past few years. I know people blame Gregg Williams for getting Archuleta over Ryan Clark, but: a) I don't know if Gregg demanded Arch, and I certainly doubt he had anything to do with the contract Arch got. A good GM would have been able to see that this was a problem and may have helped convince Gregg otherwise. We need someone who has a good head on their shoulders and isn't a yes-man to owners OR coaches. That has to be a give-take relationship, even if there is contention (I think I've heard that Gibbs and Beathard had their disagreements, and we all know how that worked out). Anyway, for me, the unforgivable thing was that before this season began so many of us (myself included) knew the script. Thomas goes down... Samuels eventually goes down (although it happened earlier than I thought), and we fold down the stretch. Even if we got a 5th new pass catcher (2008 Thomas, 2008 Kelly, 2008 Davis, 2009 Marko) I'm not sure it would have helped our OL situation, but maybe if we keep Vinny we'll find out... who knows. To be honest, if we keep Vinny, I expect he'll go out and draft a bunch of OL. The bandaid approach is the most predictable thing Vinny does. I expected it this year, to be honest. It's just not good enough. He has a severe shortsightedness, he operates with a very limited perspective. We have a team that really, really often has quotes suggesting how much they love the $$$ they are getting paid. Way more than quotes about how much they love playing for the team. It's going to take great talent evaluation and a strong will to get this team to be a success and out of the rut it's been dropped into from the last 10 years, and Vinny has not shown himself to be the man to accomplish that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 We have a difference of opinion. I am under the impression that Gibbs 2.0 was too busy with Nascar to be involved in those decisions. It was reported that way - and I'm inclined to believe that. Therefore, yes I still point the finger at Vinny. Either way we won't be able to prove who was calling the shots there. I think it was Vinny and you think it was Gibbs. But do you see how elkabong has more compelling evidence to believe what he does than you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Which two offensive linemen? Personally, I think he should have taken Sam Baker in the first rather than trading down. Certainly in the early returns Atlanta fleeced us on production out of the picks, but on top of that, that would have gone a great lengths in giving us some depth at OL. But there were guards taken in the 2nd. Heck, Mike Pollak, a C in college, was taken late in the second by the Colts. He could have been useful. Maybe there wouldn't have been 10+ botched snaps with a better center, who knows. He played in 13 games last year, so probably came in for injury for the Colts. You know, solid OL depth. That will be there in the long-term. And grow with the team. That's not the same thing as being forced to turn to Levi Jones as a FA as a bandaid, or looking at a project (or arguably 2, if you could Heyer as well since he was undrafted) to start for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Well no, but Left Tackles and Linebackers that are everyone's choice for the top 1-3 picks (Brown being the other)...If you were talking about a Quarterback(s) then I agree. But left tackles taken in the first 5 picks are usually solid for a LONG time. The Samuels LT pick was excellent and made a ton of sense at the time. Still credit our staff with the ability to develop him into the consistent pro-bowl caliber player he became. But it's my personal opinion that the Arrington and Taylor picks weren't obvious picks at the time and that they weren't necessarily home runs either. I'm not using hindsight and the fact that neither lasted very long on the team to determine this. There is very little history of linebackers and safeties going in the top 5, much less a linebacker in the top 3. The only other one I can think of off the top of my head in the past 30 years was Lawrence Taylor. If you look at the top 3 picks from the past 10 to 15 drafts, nearly all of them are QBs, OTs, DTs, DEs, and the occasional stud running back or receiver. Safeties in the top 10 have a pretty bad record too. Aside from Taylor, I can't think of a top 10 safety that's left the team he ended up on really happy with their choice. Even with Landry, a lot of people think guys like Patrick Willis, Darrelle Revis, or Adrian Peterson would have been a more appropriate pick in the end. The Arrington pick definitely broke top 3 tradition, as did the Taylor pick for the top 10. That's not to say they ended up poorly because both guys were impact players that are no longer around because of reasons no scout could have foreseen. But they weren't all that obvious since they set precedents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Personally, I think he should have taken Sam Baker in the first rather than trading down. Certainly in the early returns Atlanta fleeced us on production out of the picks, but on top of that, that would have gone a great lengths in giving us some depth at OL.But there were guards taken in the 2nd. Heck, Mike Pollak, a C in college, was taken late in the second by the Colts. He could have been useful. Maybe there wouldn't have been 10+ botched snaps with a better center, who knows. He played in 13 games last year, so probably came in for injury for the Colts. You know, solid OL depth. That will be there in the long-term. And grow with the team. That's not the same thing as being forced to turn to Levi Jones as a FA as a bandaid, or looking at a project (or arguably 2, if you could Heyer as well since he was undrafted) to start for us. I'm not a big Sam Baker fan at all even looking only at the short term. He's been solid for the Falcons, but you have to remember that they run a hybrid zone blocking/man scheme that uses mostly zone concepts in the running game. It is very different from our own power man scheme and it requires a very different set of attributes and skills from our linemen. Baker came out of college ideally suited for that ZBS because of his agility and off-blocking ability. But he's not a powerful player at all and I think he'd get eaten alive trying to start for us given his poor fit. Mike Pollak is debatable because remember, he's also in that zone scheme in Indy. But while I don't think he could have played guard here, I think Pollak might actually have had some success here at center even though he's not very powerful either. Still, if Malcolm Kelly turns into a half decent starter, he'll go down as a better pick than Pollak would have. But anyway, Pollak over Malcolm Kelly and Duke Robinson in the 5th over Cody Glenn are the only instances I can come up with, using the full benefit of hindsight, where we should have gotten an offensive lineman. There isn't a single other notable free agent available or draft choice I can come up with as a real solution during that time span. I'm not convinced we had the ability to rebuild the offensive line in that time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 You have any examples of me twisting or outright lying? See below. Yeah, big difference between questioning a guys's football smarts and saying he is mentally slow. But even then I said it looked racist and I even conceded that you weren't being racist, just that you had poorly worded what you meant. The issue was dropped once we clarified it, so why is it an issue again? You and a couple others have tried to bring it up and act like I just threw it out there as a baseless personal attack. Something tells me I would have been banned had that happened, and I haven't been. Seems like the only reason you cling to that is to use as more personal attacks instead of discussing the actual topic. I know I said I wouldn't run the risk of responding to you, but I think I owe it to you after the above. I don't know what you've said to anyone else that you've accused of the same, but that's the first time that you've back tracked on that horrendous slur on me. The issue wasn't clarified between us, AT ALL, and you "conceaded", (nice, sincere word by the way, but ragardless), nothing. It WAS a completely baseless actack, that, as I said at the time, and would of done to anyone that insisted and used it as verhmently as you did toward I in that particulary thread way back at the time, came from someone with ulterier motives and a hidden personal, bigoted agenda to even think that way in the first place when nothing could of been further from the truth. Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your confusing a non-response to me with someone else, being the length of time and the amount of other conversations you must of had over the duration; and, being as this is the first time you've offered up any sort of apology, however late or worded it was, I thank you for that. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 But do you see how elkabong has more compelling evidence to believe what he does than you do? absolutely. There is a lot more evidence to point the finger at Gibbs but that is if you believe those reports coming out of redskins park. I think the way the skins shut out the media and only allow certain reporters access allows them to pervert the news. If what you are saying is true then Gibbs, Williams, Saunders, and Bugel all made selections on players and that is ok?? I don't think any other teams do it that way. But hey, I don't have any evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 See below.I know I said I wouldn't run the risk of responding to you, but I think I owe it to you after the above. I don't know what you've said to anyone else that you've accused of the same, but that's the first time that you've back tracked on that horrendous slur on me. The issue wasn't clarified between us, AT ALL, and you "conceaded", (nice, sincere word by the way, but ragardless), nothing. It WAS a completely baseless actack, that, as I said at the time, and would of done to anyone that insisted and used it as verhmently as you did toward I in that particulary thread way back at the time, came from someone with ulterier motives and a hidden personal, bigoted agenda to even think that way in the first place when nothing could of been further from the truth. Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your confusing a non-response to me with someone else, being the length of time and the amount of other conversations you must of had over the duration; and, being as this is the first time you've offered up any sort of apology, however late or worded it was, I thank you for that. Hail. Like I said, provide a link or some concrete stuff, not just baseless speculation. You threw out the racist stuff as part of your personal attack rather than discuss the issue campaign, I simply explained what I can recollect occurred. Like I said, I made amends despite your poorly worded opinion, because if I hadn't, and I had simply thrown out a nasty accusation w/ no backing, I would have been banned. I have never been banned from ES. So, like I said, the situation was resolved, now you simply can't let it go, and this isn;t the first time you've brought up that dead issue to me in a non-related thread. You do realize that personal attacks and attempts at defamation don't make the argument at hand less valid? Maybe you don't. No problem on the apology though. In all honesty I can recollect just two instances where I personally brought racism up, and in both cases it was in response to posters saying things like what I mentioned, like "mentally slow" and even "mush mouth," and if it's isn't racist at the very least its stereotypical, and its completely unnecessary. There is a world of difference between "poor football aptitude" and "mentally slow." I wish you could find the link to when we had that conversation though, cuz like I said if I simply threw out the remark unprovoked and then did not clarify it further, I would have been banned from ES, and such a thing has never happened to me. Regardless though, we are way off from the original point in this thread, which is generalizing the other side of the argument was completely unnecessary. Both sides have plenty of people who take their time to do research and explain their side with evidence. I try to be one of those posters, and my thread making history shows that, so when I see the "blindly defend" stuff get tossed out there, I take offense to it, much as you took offense to the racist stuff when it wasn't your intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 absolutely. There is a lot more evidence to point the finger at Gibbs but that is if you believe those reports coming out of redskins park. I think the way the skins shut out the media and only allow certain reporters access allows them to pervert the news.If what you are saying is true then Gibbs, Williams, Saunders, and Bugel all made selections on players and that is ok?? I don't think any other teams do it that way. But hey, I don't have any evidence They are all a part of the decision making process, offering their opinions on matters after discussing them. Only one person gets final say. Going by title, that man was Gibbs. Heck, look at how many free agents we brought in and how many draft picks we traded away. Both of those tactics have been greatly reduced since Gibbs left, because Cerrato was promoted and now the responsibility is on him. the differences in the way the team was run under Gibbs and the way it is now, show to me Gibbs had final say, as his title would suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMayo21 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 didn't we draft RB Kenny Watson in the 2002 draft as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 He played for a bit with the Bungles after Spurrier and Lewis left town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeenzfan Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Cody Glenn LB Nebraska - who Robert Henson LB Texas Christian Dallas Sartz LB Southern California - who H. B. Blades LB Pittsburg Roger McIntosh, OLB Miami Kevin Simon, ILB Tennessee Robert McCune, ILB Louisville Jared Newberry OLB Stanford That's a lot of LB's to miss on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.