When will we EVER learn? Redskins fans, some of the biggest hypocrites around .....

[The Tris]

Who were the 2-3 FA starters in 2010? 2009? or 2008?

Still waiting on this. Since this is a fact staring me in the face, it should not be hard to come up with the answer jflow.

[jflow78]

Still waiting on this. Since this is a fact staring me in the face, it should not be hard to come up with the answer jflow.

I already posted it in a longer post a few pages back. I'll find it but hold your horses.

EDIT:

Here is the link to the post:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349161-When-will-we-EVER-learn-Redskins-fans-some-of-the-biggest-hypocrites-around-.....&p=8377129&viewfull=1#post8377129

In short, and I do list the specifics in that post, they signed 17 FAs (including a couple players they traded for) over the last 5 years who they immediately used for starters, and started over half of the season (I think only one of them started less than a double digit # of games). Out of the 17, only 5-6 were younger than 30. I also said, on average 2-3 per season, not that they actually sign 2-3 every year, it just averaged out to that. One season they signed 6, one year they signed none. But, even last season they signed 3 starters who are OLD (Alge Crumpler, Gerard Warren, and traded for Deion Branch, all of which are STILL listed as starters.

[The Tris]

I already posted it in a longer post a few pages back. I'll find it but hold your horses.

I saw the post about the signings in 2006 and 2007. I don't dispute those. What I asked about was years 08-10.

[MartinC]

For a team that already spent all that money on OJ and Hall and is looking at spending a grip more on Landry? How much money are you wanting us to throw at those positions while spending much less on other positions? You can't spend all that money there without knowing your ignoring other areas of the team

You can never have enough good corners but I would argue having a great pass rush is more important to your pass defense than a great secondary. You can't afford to be flat bad on either end though.

[addicted]

1. Rookie cap hit is always fairly negligible. It's usually in the $2 to $3 million range.

I've seen reported that's actually 5 million for this year

2. I'm always in favor of paying your own - a philosophy the Redskins have never followed.

Me too

3. Keep in mind' date=' the $45 million is to the floor. The cap is higher than that. Operating under the theory that the cap is going to be around $130 million and the floor will be 95 percent of that. That means, the Skins actually have somewhere in the range of $58 to $65 million to spend. You could basically sign the 2010 Bengals for that amount. The idea that one player is going to screw that up is insane.[/quote']

In one post you accuse everyone in this thread of not understanding the problem with misusing the salary cap because it means you have no depth.

In the next post you say "One guy can't screw that up" which is completely wrong.

If you have a total of 40 million to play with and you decide that you should dump that money into 2 players you just screwed your team over royally.

Your mistaken again about your outlook on free agency.

The Redskins could - theoretically - sign their rookies' date=' re-up Landry, and then sign 5 Albert Haynesworth level contracts and still be under the cap.

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they could. So the idea that "Oh my God....we'll be trapped with bad contracts...." is foolish.[/quote']

Negative.

Thinking that we are 2-3 players away from a championship is more foolish imo

Thinking that signing up a bunch of bad contracts wouldn't have negative effects on our future is more foolish imo

Thinking that if we don't take advantage of this money and build something we never have - DEPTH - and just need some new starters again is more foolish imo

What we do with this money will spell either future defeat or future success. Wasting money is not something we can or should even consider doing at all ever

[jflow78]

I saw the post about the signings in 2006 and 2007. I don't dispute those. What I asked about was years 08-10.

I included the last 5 years in there, so you may have missed 2008-10, but even last season they signed 2 30+ FAs as starers and traded for a starter at WR (Branch). And 2-3 per season is the average over that period, they signed 6 one season, then zero one season, but it averages out to 2-3 starters a season that the find from outside the draft.

[addicted]

You can never have enough good corners but I would argue having a great pass rush is more important to your pass defense than a great secondary. You can't afford to be flat bad on either end though.

I would agree with that. The fact that we would have so much money wrapped into the secondary would have very serious negative affects on other areas of the team. Those thinking that it's not your money really don't understand NFL economics. You only have so much money per year. That money can go to any position on the field but if you run out there isn't any more. So you spend so much money on the secondary and you don't have much left for the defensive line. The defensive line suffers. Every single one of us should give a damn where our moneys spent

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

2010

1. Alge Crumpler who I did not realize was still in football started 10 games and played in 16.

2. That Little ****er Woodhead is technically a FA. A street free agent but still. Also, he is white and has moxie which means New England loves him.

3. Deion Branch is 31 and was acquired via a trade, which is actually a more damaging method of acquiring old talent. So, **** it, I'm counting him.

4. Kicker Shane Graham who was then cut

2009

1. The ancient Fred Taylor who did play a lot

2. Joey Galloway who did not

3. Derrick Burgess who did

2008

1. Deltha O'Neal

2. Lamont Jordan

2007

1. Adalius Thomas

2. Donte Stallworth

3. Kyle Brady

4. Wes Welker - trade

5. Randy Moss - trade

2006

Junior Seau

2003

Rodney Harrison

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 02:51 PM ----------

BB has a pattern. He relies on FA or trades almost exclusively for his playmakers. If the guy scores on offense or makes a game-changing play on defense, he is likely a pick-up rather than a draft pick.

Basically, RBs, WRs, TEs, and Corners are almost always picked up in free agency. And playmaking LBs. (Keep in mind that Vrabel was a FA too). He also loves really old "character" guys. Seau might STILL be on that roster. I've lost track. Fred Taylor kept taking up a roster space long past his expiration date. I love no idea why Galloway was there.

[jflow78]

....BB has a pattern. He relies on FA or trades almost exclusively for his playmakers. If the guy scores on offense or makes a game-changing play on defense' date=' he is likely a pick-up rather than a draft pick.[/quote']

You've got some I didn't include because I didn't think they played enough. You're also missing a few of the guys the signed as starters, but I think you and I are pointing in the same direction. BB loves him some FA.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If we were in the position of the Detroit Lions, I say spend.

Why are you so queer for Detroit?

You are going to be despondent when they win 5 games next year.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Great. So when we have our core of young players established and competing at a high level year on year, we can take from the Belicheat philosophy and add one or two experienced vets year on year to keep things ticking over.

Nice to see you have our future down the line at heart.

Hail.

[The Tris]

2010

FA - Gerard Warren DT (32) starter, Alge Crumpler TE (33) starter, Traded a draft pick - Deion Branch WR (31) starter

Gerald Warren was signed 54 days into the 2010 FA period as a depth player behind Ty Warren. Unless you would like to argue Gerald was going to start AHEAD of the All-Pro Ty.

The fact that he started was due to injury (which is how a player signed for depth can get elevated to starting role).

Alge Crumpler: 6 catches for 52 yards. Gronk/Hernandez: 87 catches for 1,109 yards. Yeah, Crumpler was the #1 TE alright.

Deion Branch: tough to be part of a offseason plan of adding 2-3 veteran starters when you are added in October of 2010.

2009

FA - Chris Baker TE (30) started 7 games, Tully Banta-Cain LB (29) starter still, Leigh Bodden CB (28) started 14 games

Chris Baker: signed as back up to starter Ben Watson

Tully Banta Cain: First player signed as the #1 player on the depth chart. Signed to a vet minimum deal, he was cut after just 20 days on the team, and then resigned 24 hours later.

Leigh Bodden: Signed to a 1 year, $750,000 contract in 2009. He was signed to be a starter.

2008

FA - Sam Aiken WR (28) started 2 games,

Sam Aiken: Seriously, you think they signed Sam Aiken to be a starter, or he started two games because of injuries to Moss and Welker?

In 3 years, I count 3 players who were signed specifically to be starters (I believe someone here has repeated set a baseline for veteran FA acquisitions per year at 1 per year, who was that?). All the other players were signed as veteran depth, exactly what we should be doing.

If we were to use your definition of "players signed to be starters", then last year, the Redskins signed Phillip Buchanon, Roydell Williams, Rex Grossman, Anthony Bryant, Macho Harris, and Vonnie Holliday as "starters."

There is a difference in signing someone to be a starter, and signing veteran depth that might end up as a starter due to injury. We should be doing the later (what the Patriots do) when we are looking for our veteran depth.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You've got some I didn't include because I didn't think they played enough. You're also missing a few of the guys the signed as starters, but I think you and I are pointing in the same direction. BB loves him some FA.

I didn't feel like digging through the roster each year. I just grabbed the names I recongized.

BB likes bringing in Free Agents but feels no obligation to play them. Hell, he feels no obligation to play anyone.

Seau came in to "mentor" and ended up staring.

Has anyone looked at the 2006 Patriots LBs lately?

Vrabel (31)

Bruschi (33 and a stroke victim)

Seau (37)

Colvin (a spry 29)

3 of the 4 were FAs by the way. None were drafted by Belichik.

[addicted]

Why do some of you have a hardon for the Patriots?

2010 - Lost Divisional Playoff

2009 - Lost Wild Card Playoff

2008 - Missed Playoffs

2007 - Lost Superbowl

2006 - Lost Conference Championship

2005 - Lost Divisional Playoff

Seriously what the hell have they done to make you want us to be like them? Sure they are good every year but they suck when it matters

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In 3 years, I count 3 players who were signed specifically to be starters (I believe someone here has repeated set a baseline for veteran FA acquisitions per year at 1 per year, who was that?). All the other players were signed as veteran depth, exactly what we should be doing.

I don't think Belichik signs or drafts anyone to be starters. There was talk that he was going to cut Randy Moss in training camp in '07. He brings dudes in and whoever plays, plays. Even if they are 962-year-old Junior Seau.

I'm not even certain that "Starter" is a word with much meaning up in the Reich...I mean.... New England.

Adalius Thomas was given $35 million...to be a rotation guy with Seau and Bruschi. He then played one year at OLB, got hurt, and found himself in The Furher...I mean Belichik's dog house where he was never seen again.

Welker was suppsed to be a "slot guy" and ended up being Art Monk. Woodhead was supposed to be comic relief and ended up getting meaningful carries in playoff games.

[The Tris]

Seriously what the hell have they done to make you want us to be like them? Sure they are good every year but they suck when it matters

They have averaged 12.1 wins per season the past decade.

I believe the playoffs to be largely a crap shoot of what team is healthiest, hotest, or gets the most calls.

Rarely do I think the "best" team wins the SB. So I think a realistic goal should be to win 12+ games a year, there by giving you a higher probability of getting to a Super Bowl.

I don't think Belichik signs or drafts anyone to be starters. There was talk that he was going to cut Randy Moss in training camp in '07. He brings dudes in and whoever plays' date=' plays. Even if they are 962-year-old Junior Seau.

I'm not even certain that "Starter" is a word with much meaning up in the Reich...I mean.... New England.[/quote']

Agreed. Which is why it is crazy that people think that he adds FA starters every year.

But at the end of the day, the majority of players that start on NE are home grown draft picks.

[addicted]

They have averaged 12.1 wins per season the past decade.

And earlier in the decade when they were winning playoff games and superbowls giving them respect made sense to me. Well until they not only started losing Superbowls but also were caught in that cheating scandle. Yet although they've done nothing for the past 7 years lots of you still see them as the measuring stick. I don't

Not to mention when you play 6 games a year against the crappy teams they play - Jets, Miami, and Buffalo - Wins and losses isn't anything special to me. Yes over the past three seasons the JETS turned it around but your talking about 10 year stretch, the worst division in football. Sorry but to me regular season wins and losses mean nothing. I judge that team on the playoffs. And the recent record straight up sucks

I believe the playoffs to be largely a crap shoot of what team is health, hot, or gets the calls. Rarely do I think the "best" team wins the SB. So I think a realistic goal should be to win 12+ games a year, there by giving you a high probability of winning a Super Bowl.

If you play in the NFC Beast and win an average of 12 games a season then the team doing that is straight up BAMF's, but in the sorry ass Patriots division I think that's a joke.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Agreed. Which is why it is crazy that people think that he adds FA starters every year.

But at the end of the day, the majority of players that start on NE are home grown draft picks.

He doesn't "add" any starters any year either through the draft or free agency. He does inevitably start ancient free agents though.

The majority of this thread has offered the position that the Skins should never sign anyone over 30 (more or less). Also, New England has been shown as an example of the "right way" to do things.

And those two arguments are contradictory because Belichik brings in ancient free agents every year...and ****ing plays them.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 03:18 PM ----------

Also, add Corey Dillon to the list of "playmakers" that Hoodyman brings in from the outside.

It should also be noted that New England doesn't give a **** about the character of the dudes they bring in.

[The Tris]

They are 14-5 in the playoffs since 2001.

Pittsburgh is 12-5 over the same span.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 04:23 PM ----------

If you play in the NFC Beast and win an average of 12 games a season then the team doing that is straight up BAMF's, but in the sorry ass Patriots division I think that's a joke.

The Eagles have managed to win 10.9 games per season for the past 11 years.

[addicted]

They are 14-5 in the playoffs since 2001.

Pittsburgh is 12-5 over the same span.

NFL = Not For Long

What have they done lately?

2010 - Lost Divisional Playoff

2009 - Lost Wild Card Playoff

2008 - Missed Playoffs

2007 - Lost Superbowl

2006 - Lost Conference Championship

2005 - Lost Divisional Playoff

You want us to be paper regular season champions and win nothing like that or you want to win it all? Look I'm not saying they are terrible but truth is it's been 7 years since they acomplished anything of note and that playoff record is about 8 years old for importance. Just because they can beat up the loser teams doesn't mean we should respect them. I won't respect that team until it manages to win a Superbowl without cheating. So far they haven't

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 03:30 PM ----------

The Eagles have managed to win just under 10.9 games per season for the past 11 years.

Man you just hit me in the gut. I hate that team

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Why do some of you have a hardon for the Patriots?

2010 - Lost Divisional Playoff

2009 - Lost Wild Card Playoff

2008 - Missed Playoffs

2007 - Lost Superbowl

2006 - Lost Conference Championship

2005 - Lost Divisional Playoff

Seriously what the hell have they done to make you want us to be like them? Sure they are good every year but they suck when it matters

Surely that's all you can ask for. To be challenging year on year. As much as I crave a 4th Lombardi, we have no divine right to win one. But we should, given our history, have a right to expect this franchise to be challenging year on year.

A record like the above is a pretty darn good one in the parity of the modern day NFL.

Hail.

[The Tris]

Look I'm not saying they are terrible but truth is it's been 7 years since they acomplished anything of note and that playoff record is about 8 years old for importance. Just because they can beat up the loser teams doesn't mean we should respect them. I won't respect that team until it manages to win a Superbowl without cheating. So far they haven't

I think its a little silly that you criticism the most successful team of the past decade because they haven't done anything lately.

Does your opinion really change that much if the Giants OL gets call for one of the 37 holds on the Tyree catch?

Man you just hit me in the gut. I hate that team

Sorry. I do to. But it is possible to do even in the East.

And speaking of the division, now is the time to start planning for a long run of dominance. There could be a window opening in the next few years where there is no dominant team, and we would be wise to be preparing to retake the mantle of best in the East.

Preparation for that starts now.

[addicted]

Surely that's all you can ask for. To be challenging year on year. As much as I crave a 4th Lombardi, we have no divine right to win one. But we should, given our history, have a right to expect this franchise to be challenging year on year.

A record like the above is a pretty darn good one in the parity of the modern day NFL.

Hail.

Seriously? That's all you can ask for? Man I'd much rather suck ass and have no expectations of doing anything then for 6 straight years be some paper champions that everyone seems to thinks the greatest and have a trophy case empty from that time.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Seriously? That's all you can ask for? Man I'd much rather suck ass and have no expectations of doing anything then for 6 straight years be some paper champions that everyone seems to thinks the greatest and have a trophy case empty from that time.

Obviously you want to win the whole thing every year. That's without question. But NOBODY has a divine right to either do or expect that. To that end, when it comes to realistic expectations, then to be a perennial playoff team in with a shout is to me about as much as you can ask.

Hail.

[jflow78]

Gerald Warren was signed 54 days into the 2010 FA period as a depth player behind Ty Warren. Unless you would like to argue Gerald was going to start AHEAD of the All-Pro Ty.

The fact that he started was due to injury (which is how a player signed for depth can get elevated to starting role).

Actually, the Pats have him listed as backing up Mike Wright, who only started 5 games last season, and profootballreference.com has Gerard listed as their starter at NT. Seems odd to me for a team that allows their youth playing time so they can be prepared to take over, since they have a 25 y/o NT behind Wilfork who would have benefited if Warren didn't start.

Regardless, when your youngest starting DL is 28, it seems odd to me to go get a 30 y/o to be the primary backup, wasn't the entire point of the "don't use FA to fill your team" argument that the Pats let their young guys get playing time and get prepared to take over the position?

I guess I just misunderstood.

Alge Crumpler: 6 catches for 52 yards. Gronk/Hernandez: 87 catches for 1,109 yards. Yeah, Crumpler was the #1 TE alright.

I'm sensing some animosity in your post, so: Warning, I'm going to be an *** on these next few responses:

You should probably mention that to the Pats, since their OWN website has Crumpler listed as the #1. What idiots. How dare a #1 TE not have more receptions than his backups, BB is a moron, right? Cause I'm a moron for SAYING Crumpler was the #1, so BB must be a big old ******* moron for actually making him the #1.

OL don't have stats, and they are still starters, so I don't think the Pats were hoping to get 80 receptions a year from the 32 y/o TE who's best known for his blocking. He's NEVER been a great receiving TE (he's only had two seasons with more than 48 receptions, and 5/10 he's had less than 40 receptions - as a comparison, Cooley has had 56+ receptions in 5/7 years and one of those two he spent 9 games on IR). If they did, then it was a very POOR FA signing.

Deion Branch: tough to be part of a offseason plan of adding 2-3 veteran starters when you are added in October of 2010.

Sorry, I failed to realize that in the anti-FA POV it's okay to trade draft picks for OLD FAs starters, as long as you do it in October. Oh, and by the way, Branch is listed as their #1 on their website too. So, I will put that in my file, "doing it the right way means trading draft picks for aging players less than half-way into the season".

Chris Baker: signed as back up to starter Ben Watson

He started just as many games as Baker (and not due to injury). Like I said, they must use lots of two TE sets. Also odd, since Watson's playing time was reduced each season after 2006, Watson played in 14 games the season Baker was signed, but Watson only started 9 (according to ESPN and 7 according to profootballreference.com). So, they must have chosen to start Baker over Watson at least half the time.

Tully Banta Cain: First player signed as the #1 player on the depth chart. Signed to a vet minimum deal, he was cut after just 20 days on the team, and then resigned 24 hours later.

Leigh Bodden: Signed to a 1 year, $750,000 contract in 2009. He was signed to be a starter.

So we can agree on these two.

Sam Aiken: Seriously, you think they signed Sam Aiken to be a starter, or he started two games because of injuries to Moss and Welker?

I did say he'd only started 2 games. I also didn't include him in my number of players they signed as starters, so we agree on Sam Aiken, SERIOUSLY.

In 3 years, I count 3 players who were signed specifically to be starters (I believe someone here has repeated set a baseline for veteran FA acquisitions per year at 1 per year, who was that?). All the other players were signed as veteran depth, exactly what we should be doing.

Then you're seeing the numbers the way you want to see them. You can at least add Crumpler and Branch to the starter slot because it's VERY clear they traded for Branch with the purpose of starting him, and not due to injury either. Whose fault was it that they traded Randy Moss midseason and didn't have a good answer for the gaping hole he left? They traded for his replacement, that's getting a starter and it WASN'T because of injury, so I'm definitely counting that one.

We can throw out Gerard Warren, because as you pointed out there was no intention of signing him because of Ty's injury (I didn't know the timetable for Ty's injury and Gerard's signing, so you definitely educated me there).

If we were to use your definition of "players signed to be starters", then last year, the Redskins signed Phillip Buchanon, Roydell Williams, Rex Grossman, Anthony Bryant, Macho Harris, and Vonnie Holliday as "starters."

I'm not in any way defending the Skins offseason last year, I didn't like it, so why bother.

There is a difference in signing someone to be a starter, and signing veteran depth that might end up as a starter due to injury. We should be doing the later (what the Patriots do) when we are looking for our veteran depth.

BUT, with the exception of Gerard Warren, the Pats signed a LOT of veterans to start, not just as depth. Besides, I completely forgot they signed Deltha O'Neal to start at CB, so that's pretty much a straight across trade.

Like I said, I don't care what the Pats do with their money, but I don't see them as this perfect organisation like others do. I think they still **** up, but I'd still say they make better decisions than most organizations. However, what's wrong with thinking they make great decisions, and thinking it's not necessarily evil to sign a 30+ FA or two to start until you can draft a player to fill that spot.

I actually think they're smart with most of their signings, they sign older guys who are (by nature) short term players, until they can find a suitable young guy as a replacement. I actually think signing younger guys, who were stars for another team but don't fit our system or who don't want to work, to long term deals is what's screwed us up long term.

I also think not spending enough time on our lines has been a bigger detriment than anything. The Pats have rarely, if ever, signed an OL or DL starter, there's a lot to be said about that. But they do sign skill players a lot. There's nothing wrong with that, since it seems to have worked for them, so why vilify guys over 30 when in reality, that's only been our issue in one specific season which everyone admits was an enormous disaster (2001).

I don't want to sign 30+ guys, but Atogwe was a good short term signing. He fits everything we want in a player except that he's 2-3 years older than ideal. So what, we cut him when we find a suitable replacement. We've signed him already and there's no way we can possibly fill the other $45 million just resigning our own FAs. Money will have to be spent, I just hope we do it smart, with guys who fit our system and are ready to work, rather than going after the biggest names.