ES: With free agency, Redskins on right track

[themurf]

(courtesy photo)

While we made it perfectly clear earlier this week that we aren’t exactly thrilled that running back Larry Johnson is now a member of the Washington Redskins, there is one aspect of the signing we have no issue with.

The three-year deal that Johnson inked was worth just $3.5 million, although he could make as much as $12 million total with incentives.

In the past, the Redskins front office basically handed out five-year, $25-million contracts like candy. Seriously, free agents didn’t even have to visit Ashburn for a chance at a big pay day. They could simply have a connecting flight through Dulles and Vinny Cerrato would happily stand by at baggage claim ready and willing to double their paychecks.

If nothing else, we are thankful that those days appear to be long gone. Redskins general manager Bruce Allen has been aggressive in setting up visits with free agents, but for the first time in recent memory these get-togethers don’t guarantee anything.

In the past, Redskins One would be gassed up and ready to go at the stroke of midnight when free agency kicked off. A big-name player would be wined and dined at Morton’s with the head coach and The Danny (also known as Redskins owner Daniel Snyder) and would finish the night with courtside seats at a Wizards game (clearly this would be considered punishment now, instead of a selling point as it was back when the Wiz were relevant).

Now, a player like offensive lineman Tony Pashos visits town, chats with the new powers that be and ends up signing in Cleveland for peanuts. Talk about culture shock; ‘Skins fans never fathomed a day when the Browns outbid the Redskins for a free agent. But that’s where we are these days. And honestly, we couldn’t be happier.

Since free agency started, the Redskins have added offensive lineman Artis Hicks, nose tackle Maake Kemoeatu, tight end Sean Ryan, Johnson and quarterback Rex Grossman.

None of the players that have been added this offseason – with the exception of Johnson – are considered household names. Sure, football fans have heard of Grossman, but he’s only started nine or more games in a season once, meaning he’s got little to no expectations surrounding him.

For his career, Grossman has played in 37 NFL games (31 starts). He has completed 524 of 971 passes (54 percent) for 6,197 yards, with 33 touchdowns and 36 interceptions. He’s average in every sense of the word. But he’s not here to be a savior; he’s simply a player that Mike and Kyle Shanahan felt they could bring in who is familiar enough with their offense to help the rest of the roster catch on.

It’s no different than when former Redskins offensive coordinator Al Saunders brought quarterback Todd Collins with him. No one expects Grossman to play in actual games; he’s just an extension of the coaching staff. It’s a one-year deal, which gives him enough time to come in, show Jason Campbell and/or whoever else is playing quarterback how to run the new offense and then Grossman can move on to another city.

Click here for full article.

[Sellersfan]

Good article.

I like the methodical approach to FA's this year.

I get the feeling the Bears are cursing us after realizing they didn't have to outbid/ overpay for their FA's this year.

[TheLongshot]

Kirwan has a good article up on NFL.com about why teams aren't spending this year, even tho it is an uncapped year.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816fbd4e&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

When you look around the league, you are seeing similar things going on. While there have been a few big money deals, there haven't been many, and there have been much more cost cutting moves across the board.

[KDawg]

In years past we would have been that one team that went out and got alot of the big name guys and their pricetags. Glad to see the change in philosophy.

[Sikbug]

Great write up! I'll be sending this to my Skins friends who don't keep up with everything as much as some of us do.

[dadirtbags]

NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...NO MORE VINNY..I HATE THE COWBOYS...not sure which makes me feel better at this current time

[pjfootballer]

Kirwan has a good article up on NFL.com about why teams aren't spending this year, even tho it is an uncapped year.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816fbd4e&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

When you look around the league, you are seeing similar things going on. While there have been a few big money deals, there haven't been many, and there have been much more cost cutting moves across the board.

With the CBA, most of the good players have been tendered. The UFAs that ARE available are either old or were released due to a high salary. It's very limited. You have to really find diamonds in the rough this year.

[planter]

McFanboy, you are aptly named.

Because the Skins in the past made bad free agency personnel evaluations and overpaid to boot, now free agency is something to be avoided?

I think not.

Sure the draft is the best way to build franchises but but free agency is still useful - if you make have decent personnel decisions. The Ravens, Bears, and Giants all have improved themselves through this year's free agency.

So far, the Skins have barely improved the team. They have missed on Rolle, Clifton, and Pashos (the Clifton miss is forgiveable is they draft Okung). If they don't then the Skins will start the season with one of the worst O lines in football.

And we still don't have a single safety that can cover in a pass-happy league.

If we use our first two picks on quality O linemen.....then never mind. But I doubt that will happen.

[themurf]

McFanboy, you are aptly named.

Because the Skins in the past made bad free agency personnel evaluations and overpaid to boot, now free agency is something to be avoided?

Where exactly did I say that the Redskins should avoid free agency completely? Feel free to point that line out to me when you get a chance.

The point of the article is that the Redskins for years, threw money at other people's players who, for one reason or another, never worked out here. Now, they're still using free agency to improve their roster, they're just being smarter about it.

They're signing players to incentive-based deals to keep them hungry rather than outbidding everyone else and having a dude on the roster that's only in town to collect a big paycheck. It's refreshing to see the new regime actually be smarter about their spending habits - especially when the temptation of no salary cap is in the air.

Shanahan and Allen deserve a lot of credit for developing a plan and sticking to it (especially when the plan involves addressing free agency like real teams do rather than playing fantasy football).

[pjfootballer]

Planter,

I'll help Murf out and point out to you that if you expect a turnaround from 4-12 to 12-4, you're really only fooling yourself. This team has 2 years worth of drafts and free agency to go through before we can be competitive enough to make the playoffs let alone a SB. Your mentality of signing the shiny free agents is the exact reason we are 4-12 in the first place. Your outlook of Vinny Mentality wants to get players because of name and not because they fit the system. The Front Office, Owner, Coaches and players are buying into this new way of thinking, now the fans need to embrace it.

[Going Commando]

I've got a question. Say there is no new CBA and 2011 would ostensibly be the last offseason before a lockout, what's going to happen with free agent crop next year? The class of 2005 will be available, but does that mean '06 will be subject to an RFA tender for a second year in a row?

Or if a new CBA is struck, does that mean the sluice gates of free agents will be opened? Assuming it will have the same 4 year veterancy rule that the old CBA did, that means the virtually untouched draft classes of 2005, 2006, and 2007 all enter UFA at the same time?

By that reasoning, doesn't it make spending big the year before the greatest potential FA class in NFL history incredibly stupid? In the event that a CBA gets done and a salary cap is reinstituted for 2011, shouldn't teams be clearing as much space as possible for the smorgasbord of talent that's about to become available? If I'm right, then there will be a huge supply of elite young talent available, pushing the price down of everybody. I think next year we'll be looking back and saying that a 30 year old Julius Peppers getting a 90 million dollar contract is one of the worst deals in league history.

I wonder why Pat Kirwan didn't bring this up in his article? Everyone has known what effect the end of the CBA would have on this offseason for a while now. I want to know what it's going to do to the league in year 2 and beyond.

[planter]

Where exactly did I say that the Redskins should avoid free agency completely? Feel free to point that line out to me when you get a chance. [/Quote]

Perhaps, it was the line where the Browns outbid the Skins for Pashos and you concluded, "But that’s where we are these days. And honestly, we couldn’t be happier".

Really? Do the Skins have a RT better than Pashos?

Are you happy that the Packers outbid us for LT Clifton, too? Unless we obtain Okung at #4 that decision will haunt us (and our QB).

Perhaps, it was the your subject title "With free agency, Redskins on right track"

Yes, we've certainly saved money - by selecting ONLY second stringers and released players.

I agree that the draft is the place to build a team, but notice the teams that are relatively quiet in free agency have had several years in a row of successful drafts. They're good teams.

Many of "dudes collecting fat paychecks" have earned them. They're proven performers. Don't blame free agents for the lousy personnel decisions of recent Skins' GMs and coaches.

The Ravens have been universally applauded for acquiring free agent Anquan Boldin. Similarly, many (including HOF corner/safety Rod Woodson) like the Giants Antrel Rolle decision. While the Skins needed a cover safety almost as badly as the NYGs, did we even make an offer?

If Allen and the Shanahan(s) use our high draft picks to solidify the offensive line then I'll eat crow....

We'll see.

[planter]

Planter,

I'll help Murf out and point out to you that if you expect a turnaround from 4-12 to 12-4, you're really only fooling yourself.

Heh? Did I sound wildly optimistic about the Skins upcoming season? Of course, it's going to take a few years to get back into the playoffs. If we miss on a #4 QB pick, it could be 5 years.

Your mentality of signing the shiny free agents is the exact reason we are 4-12 in the first place.

Again, don't blame free agents simply because the Skins' have had a run of lousy personnel evaluators (coaches and GMs) (Gibbs excepted). That's why they were fired!

Phillip Daniels, Cornelius Griffin, Shawn Springs, Marcus Washington, London Fletcher, Andre Carter, and Albert Haynesworth were free agents. In this years free agency period, the Ravens signing of Anquan Boldin was a wise free agent move. Similarly, the Giants acquisition of Atrel Rolle.

And don't forget the RamSkins. :-)

I do agree that the draft is the primary way to build a team.

[MrJL]

I've got a question. Say there is no new CBA and 2011 would ostensibly be the last offseason before a lockout, what's going to happen with free agent crop next year? The class of 2005 will be available, but does that mean '06 will be subject to an RFA tender for a second year in a row?

Or if a new CBA is struck, does that mean the sluice gates of free agents will be opened? Assuming it will have the same 4 year veterancy rule that the old CBA did, that means the virtually untouched draft classes of 2005, 2006, and 2007 all enter UFA at the same time?

By that reasoning, doesn't it make spending big the year before the greatest potential FA class in NFL history incredibly stupid? In the event that a CBA gets done and a salary cap is reinstituted for 2011, shouldn't teams be clearing as much space as possible for the smorgasbord of talent that's about to become available? If I'm right, then there will be a huge supply of elite young talent available, pushing the price down of everybody. I think next year we'll be looking back and saying that a 30 year old Julius Peppers getting a 90 million dollar contract is one of the worst deals in league history.

I wonder why Pat Kirwan didn't bring this up in his article? Everyone has known what effect the end of the CBA would have on this offseason for a while now. I want to know what it's going to do to the league in year 2 and beyond.

as I understand the rules if no new CBA is reached after the uncapped year and for some reason there's no labor stoppage they return to to the cap and play under the old rules until a new CBA is in place.

As for further talent it would go back to four years means you're an UFA, but all these 4th and 5th year RFA's this year would likely have signed multi-year contracts so they'd still be off the market.

[themurf]

Many of "dudes collecting fat paychecks" have earned them. They're proven performers. Don't blame free agents for the lousy personnel decisions of recent Skins' GMs and coaches.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that roughly 90 percent of the free agents signed by the Redskins over the last decade were better performers on their previous team than they were in Washington.

Bruce Smith. Deion Sanders. Jeff George. Mark Carrier. Antwaan Randle El. Adam Archuleta. Throw in players they traded for like Mark Brunell, Brandon Lloyd and T.J. Duckett. They were all better players when they weren't in D.C.

You might have enjoyed the era of overpaying for a player's accomplishments on another team, but I'd much rather see the 'Skins target particular players in positions of need and sign them to incentive-based deals. That way, even if you insist on bringing in Larry Johnson, he's got millions of reasons to stay motivated and out of trouble.

[Skinsinparadise]

Perhaps, it was the line where the Browns outbid the Skins for Pashos and you concluded, "But that’s where we are these days. And honestly, we couldn’t be happier".

Really? Do the Skins have a RT better than Pashos?

It's not like Pashos is Jordan Gross. Have you ever heard Pashos talked about as an elite or for the matter very good RT?

He is about 30, and wasn't that long ago he was released by another club. I don't see what's much different about him talent wise than Hicks who they ultimately signed.

Are you happy that the Packers outbid us for LT Clifton, too? Unless we obtain Okung at #4 that decision will haunt us (and our QB).

If you read the articles at the time the Skins were pursuing him, some of them said that Clifton is an introverted kind of guy and people doubted he'd want to leave GB and he would have resigned with GB from the get go but he wanted 7 million a year, and they were offering 5. Well he ultimately got close to 7 mill and resigned.

For the Redskins to end up with Clifton I would guess they'd have to go to at least 8 million. And yeah if the cap returns next year like most expect, being saddled with an 8 million dollar contract for who will be 34 that year, is not IMO a shrewd business move.

Overpaying 30 something O lineman to provide stop gap help for the O line seems to be vintage Vinny style as opposed to how our division rivals like the Giants and Eagles build their teams up.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take a step forward.

The Ravens have been universally applauded for acquiring free agent Anquan Boldin. Similarly, many (including HOF corner/safety Rod Woodson) like the Giants Antrel Rolle decision. While the Skins needed a cover safety almost as badly as the NYGs, did we even make an offer?

The Ravens and Giants are arguably Super Bowl contenders who didn't build their teams primarily through FA. On Sirrius recently they were talking about how unusual the Rolle deal is for the Giants based on how they usually do things.

I would assume if the Redskins thought that signing Rolle is a major ingredient needed for a deep playoff run, they would have made the move.

If I had to take a stab at their game plan its this: they will spend this year fixing their cap problem, and making some strides with the team, and evaluating what they got. They want to change the culture, starting with creating more competition for positions -- and in turn making players on edge and hungrier. Shanny wasn't a big winner in his first year in Denver. I am imagining that he is comfortable with that scenario here too.

Allen has said BEFORE FA began that he didn't think this was a good FA crop. And they have talked about getting younger. Next year looms 2 things: 1. is a strike. 2. likely the cap returning with a pretty darn good FA crop.

This year you make strides, change the culture, and open up MAJOR cap room for next year when you are more likely to have a YOUNGER and a better FA crop -- and the team would be closer hopefully to the Giants level at that point where you know if you sign a Rolle or Dansby type player its more likely to take you to the promised land.

[China]

The Ravens have been universally applauded for acquiring free agent Anquan Boldin.

Anquan Boldin was not a free agent. He was aquired by Baltimore via trade along with a 2010 fifth-round draft pick for Baltimore's 2010 third- and fourth-round picks.

[pjfootballer]

Heh? Did I sound wildly optimistic about the Skins upcoming season? Of course, it's going to take a few years to get back into the playoffs. If we miss on a #4 QB pick, it could be 5 years.

Again, don't blame free agents simply because the Skins' have had a run of lousy personnel evaluators (coaches and GMs) (Gibbs excepted). That's why they were fired!

Phillip Daniels, Cornelius Griffin, Shawn Springs, Marcus Washington, and Albert Haynesworth were free agents. In this years free agency period, the Ravens signing of Anquan Boldin was a wise free agent move. Similarly, the Giants acquisition of Atrel Rolle.

I do agree that the draft is the primary way to build a team.

I do agree that we did hit on free agents more than we missed, but with that said, it really got us no more than a wild card appearance and headaches with the salary cap for years. Not that we didn't manage the salary cap well, but you have to admit it did hamstring us at times.

Also, I think the Redskins are going with the Patriots approach this year. Shanahan had plenty of time to study what works nowadays. New England has a 1st and (3) 2nd round picks in this year's draft. They load up on picks, sign mid-level guys (Seau, Harrison, Dillon, Fred Taylor, Antowain Smith) to fill in holes that they can't fill in the draft, then the next year they draft areas they couldn't fill the year before, all without affecting their cap.

[TheLongshot]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that roughly 90 percent of the free agents signed by the Redskins over the last decade were better performers on their previous team than they were in Washington.

Bruce Smith. Deion Sanders. Jeff George. Mark Carrier. Antwaan Randle El. Adam Archuleta. Throw in players they traded for like Mark Brunell, Brandon Lloyd and T.J. Duckett. They were all better players when they weren't in D.C.

Probably very true from 2000 to 2003. After Gibbs arrived, it had improved a lot (with the notable exception of 2006), mostly because we actually had a consistent plan, rather than throw players at the wall and see what stuck. What killed us eventually was the lack of draft picks, which the team has been trying to recover from for the past three seasons.

You might have enjoyed the era of overpaying for a player's accomplishments on another team, but I'd much rather see the 'Skins target particular players in positions of need and sign them to incentive-based deals. That way, even if you insist on bringing in Larry Johnson, he's got millions of reasons to stay motivated and out of trouble.

I think there were cap issues with incentive-laden deals, which is why you are more likely to see them now than you were to see them before. When you have to budget for a cap year-to-year, you don't really want unknowns that can bite you in the ass if suddenly someone performs better than expected.

[Skinsinparadise]

Probably very true from 2000 to 2003. After Gibbs arrived, it had improved a lot (with the notable exception of 2006), mostly because we actually had a consistent plan, rather than throw players at the wall and see what stuck. What killed us eventually was the lack of draft picks, which the team has been trying to recover from for the past three seasons.

Agree that trading draft picks was the bigger problem. Love Gibbs but in his last run they didn't treat 2nd to 4th round picks like they meant much. And I always thought being active in FA should help you preclude having to give up picks. They both signed lots of FA's and traded a lot of picks which IMO is a mistake.

When they overpaid Archuleta IMO it wasn't as bad as when they tore up Brandon Lloyd's contract and paid him big money becuase in Lloyd's case it was compounded by the fact that they gave up a 3rd and 4th round pick in the process.

I don't see how you can build a team LONG TERM by constantly giving away draft picks.

[TheLongshot]

Agree that trading draft picks was the bigger problem. Love Gibbs but in his last run they didn't treat 2nd to 4th round picks like they meant much. And I always thought being active in FA should help you preclude having to give up picks. They both signed lots of FA's and traded a lot of picks which IMO is a mistake.

Well, to be fair to Gibbs, he felt he was just a few players away from a SB run in 2006. It happens he was wrong.

When they overpaid Archuleta IMO it wasn't as bad as when they tore up Brandon Lloyd's contract and paid him big money becuase in Lloyd's case it was compounded by the fact that they gave up a 3rd and 4th round pick in the process.

The contract itself wasn't a killer: It was basically a three year deal with an option to renew. (Carter and ARE got similar deals and both got their renewals with "restructuring") Course, the Skins didn't think that they weren't going to get three years out of Lloyd.

The failure there wasn't in giving Lloyd the contract (they did the same thing after they traded for Moss), but with misreading his personality. I view the Lloyd trade as a failure in scouting, which probably lead to Louis Riddick losing his job.

[Skinsinparadise]

Well, to be fair to Gibbs, he felt he was just a few players away from a SB run in 2006. It happens he was wrong.

I go with that to an extent and it seems to be how Vinny always operated but as for Gibbs I think that's part of it but not the whole story. Gibbs has gone on the record multiple times about his love for veterans, and while he likes the draft he seemed to go out of his way to mention the crap shoot aspect of it.

Hard for me to imagine that Gibbs thought the team he inherited from Spurrier was a player or two from a SB run. And he went draft pick trade crazy from the get go. Trading his 2nd, 3rd, and 5th picks the first year he took over.

Course, the Skins didn't think that they weren't going to get three years out of Lloyd.

of course they didn't think they'd get 3 years out of Lloyd? Wasn't he in his mid 20s then? I recall what they said that year and that was they are interested in acquiring people that were young enough that they can grow with the team as opposed to over the hill veterans.

The failure there wasn't in giving Lloyd the contract (they did the same thing after they traded for Moss), but with misreading his personality. I view the Lloyd trade as a failure in scouting, which probably lead to Louis Riddick losing his job.

Yeah I bet they had the Santana drill in mind when they tore up Lloyd's contract and gave him a nice big pay raise. They likely saw the two situations as similar, and as you pointed out they were wrong. I don't see how them being wrong minimizes my point if anything it enhances it.

Saying its Riddick's fault and am guessing taking Gibbs off the hook for it is fine -- but then shouldn't we give their scouts and not Gibbs credit for their good signings too? -- am assuming 90% of their moves had something to do with scouting.

[TheLongshot]

I go with that to an extent and it seems to be how Vinny always operated but as for Gibbs I think that's part of it but not the whole story. Gibbs has gone on the record multiple times about his love for veterans, and while he likes the draft he seemed to go out of his way to mention the crap shoot aspect of it.

Hard for me to imagine that Gibbs thought the team he inherited from Spurrier was a player or two from a SB run. And he went draft pick trade crazy from the get go. Trading his 2nd, 3rd, and 5th picks the first year he took over.

Actually, it isn't Vinny's history. If anything, Vinny liked to trade down and get more picks. (Notable exception was the RFA spree that they did in 2003, and that seemed to be an experiment, one that the team has never repeated.)

As for the rest, you come across one of the big flaws of the Gibbs era: there was an expiration date on his run and he knew it. Gibbs' goal was to get the team off and running, with the goal of winning a SB at some point in his 5 year deal. Even so, the trades he made in those first two years mostly helped the team. (As an aside, it is uncertain we would have done better in the draft, considering that overall, those first two drafts were duds.)

of course they didn't think they'd get 3 years out of Lloyd? Wasn't he in his mid 20s then? I recall what they said that year and that was they are interested in acquiring people that were young enough that they can grow with the team as opposed to over the hill veterans.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. They expected Lloyd to be a contributor for at least 3 years, if not more.

Yeah I bet they had the Santana drill in mind when they tore up Lloyd's contract and gave him a nice big pay raise. They likely saw the two situations as similar, and as you pointed out they were wrong. I don't see how them being wrong minimizes my point if anything it enhances it.

There are a couple points that I usually make about trades: One, trades are a good way to acquire players from the standpoint that a player is a known quantity in the NFL, as opposed to college players who you have to project to the pros, which is an imperfect science. Two, if you do make a trade, you better be right about the player, because the cost is much greater than it is in the draft. This is especially true in the salary cap era.

Saying its Riddick's fault and am guessing taking Gibbs off the hook for it is fine -- but then shouldn't we give their scouts and not Gibbs credit for their good signings too? -- am assuming 90% of their moves had something to do with scouting.

It is hard to assign blame here because we don't know everything, but we do know that the next year the team focused on players that the coaching staff had experience with, which suggests that they felt pro scouting was suspect. The next year Riddick loses his job. Whether he deserves the blame or not is something none of us know.

And yes, credit can be assigned as well. When Campbell was in charge of pro scouting, we did well in acquiring veterans. When he moved to college scouting in 2006, we did much better as well. His reward was to inherit Vinny's job when he was bumped upstairs.

[Skinsinparadise]

Actually, it isn't Vinny's history. If anything, Vinny liked to trade down and get more picks. (Notable exception was the RFA spree that they did in 2003, and that seemed to be an experiment, one that the team has never repeated.)

Yeah he would trade down if he could but what does that have to do with trading draft picks for established players?

I remember all too well the Jetsskins where the Redskins would give up picks to sign restricted FAs. And Nope that wasn't the Gibbs era, that was Vinny and Danny.

As for the rest, you come across one of the big flaws of the Gibbs era: there was an expiration date on his run and he knew it. Gibbs' goal was to get the team off and running, with the goal of winning a SB at some point in his 5 year deal. Even so, the trades he made in those first two years mostly helped the team. (As an aside, it is uncertain we would have done better in the draft, considering that overall, those first two drafts were duds.)

Long term giving up a 3rd rounder for Brunell seems steep compared to what most teams give up for veteran QB's on the way out. When you are giving up the best corner in the NFL in his prime why the heck do you have to throw in a 2nd rounder too to obtain Portis? Aren't stud CBs much harder to come by than RBs? Duckett for a 3rd and 4th, Lloyd for a 3rd and 4th?

One of the rare trades that some say worked out for the team Moss for Coles IMO isn't a complete home run because we took a huge cap hit for it, some say precluding us from resigning Pierce. Trading next years second to get Rocky meaning it took 2 2nd rounders to get him seems steep.

As for trading up for JC I guess the jury is out but it potentially seems to be a dubious move. Trading up for Cooley was a nice one.

I would agree that Gibbs' first FA crop was a good one, and had some success with FA after. But I disagree that most of his trades helped us.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. They expected Lloyd to be a contributor for at least 3 years, if not more.

fair enough, sorry about that.

It is hard to assign blame here because we don't know everything, but we do know that the next year the team focused on players that the coaching staff had experience with, which suggests that they felt pro scouting was suspect. The next year Riddick loses his job. Whether he deserves the blame or not is something none of us know.

And yes, credit can be assigned as well. When Campbell was in charge of pro scouting, we did well in acquiring veterans. When he moved to college scouting in 2006, we did much better as well. His reward was to inherit Vinny's job when he was bumped upstairs.

I get your point but generally its the higher ups not the employees that get credit and blame. I run my own business and yeah I can cite mistakes to my employees but the bottom line is they work for me, I hired them, I oversee them -- I am responsible for what they do, good and bad.

[TheLongshot]

Yeah he would trade down if he could but what does that have to do with trading draft picks for established players?

That it was mostly Joe Gibbs' thing, not Vinny's.

Long term giving up a 3rd rounder for Brunell seems steep compared to what most teams give up for veteran QB's on the way out. When you are giving up the best corner in the NFL in his prime why the heck do you have to throw in a 2nd rounder too to obtain Portis? Aren't stud CBs much harder to come by than RBs? Duckett for a 3rd and 4th, Lloyd for a 3rd and 4th?

The problem with rating worth is that we don't know what other teams were offering. People make the assumption that the team picked these values out of a hat, when it probably was because of what other teams were offering or other parameters of the deal. Now, you can argue that the attitude of, "We must get this player at all costs" was not needed. Personally, I have a hard time judging that from the outside and not knowing our other options.

I've argued Portis (Denver had all the leverage) and Duckett (I always thought it was a stupid trade) before and I'm not going to cover that ground again.

As for trading up for JC I guess the jury is out but it potentially seems to be a dubious move. Trading up for Cooley was a nice one.

To be honest, if we were going to get a QB of Campbell's caliber at that point, we would have needed to trade to be in a position to draft such a player. So, I really don't second guess the trade, especially considering that Gibbs probably knew at that point that Ramsey's future was questionable.

I would agree that Gibbs' first FA crop was a good one, and had some success with FA after. But I disagree that most of his trades helped us.

Gibbs' only bad year was 2006. Most of the other bad stuff that happened was paying for the sins of the past. (Either Spurrier or, in the case of 2007, Gibbs himself.) Even some of the bad stuff (losing Smoot and Pierce, for example) eventually worked out for the best.

I get your point but generally its the higher ups not the employees that get credit and blame. I run my own business and yeah I can cite mistakes to my employees but the bottom line is they work for me, I hired them, I oversee them -- I am responsible for what they do, good and bad.

And, for the most part, Gibbs felt Vinny did do a good job, which is why he supported his promotion. Most of the problems that came up within the organization was addressed in some way.

And to clarify, Vinny did deserve to be fired this year, since most of the problems that did happen could be traced back to Vinny and his decisions.

In any case, this is getting way off topic. The past is the past and this thread should be dealing with the here and now.