Playing the Percentages in the NFL

[Oldfan]

Gibbs was lacking ammunition to trade at that point. He already squandered a 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder, and 4th rounder in the 2007 draft. I love Gibbs 1 but as for Gibbs 2 -- he may have learned his lesson at the end but I think that's an unknown. Vinny did carry the tradition of trading picks when Gibbs left.

I don't think it was just that he had run low on ammunition. After the 2006 season, I recall Joe saying that the entire program would be reviewed. It put us on notice to expect lots of changes in the front office.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't think it was just that he had run low on ammunition. After the 2006 season, I recall Joe saying that the entire program would be reviewed. It put us on notice to expect lots of changes in the front office.

Gibbs was a big Vinny guy, i recall him saying so multiple times. Vinny just a few months ago still backed the AH trade, still likes the Jason Taylor trade because he says regardless of his performance, trading for him boosted team morale. Hard for me to imagine, Gibbs said no more draft trades to Danny (Danny supposedly idolized Gibbs) but Vinny decided to go on a new path once Gibbs left. Gibbs in both stints was open about preferring veterans and working with Vinny seemed to overpay for his targets. Imagine if they did get the Bengals to agree to 2 first rounders for Chad Johnson, thankfully they were saved from that one.

I love Gibbs and I'll never know what would have happened if he came back but something tells me that coming after a year where he thought they'd win the Superbowl, he wouldn't make one of those vintage short sighted moves. I have more faith in Shanny at least in terms of the draft because it was his style for 10 years to amass draft picks. For Gibbs it was never the case, he would pretty much invariably go the opposite route. What they had in common is liking free agency but with some exceptions, Gibbs was much more aggressive in FA.

[Oldfan]

Gibbs was a big Vinny guy, i recall him saying so multiple times. Vinny just a few months ago still backed the AH trade, still likes the Jason Taylor trade because he says regardless of his performance, trading for him boosted team morale. Hard for me to imagine, Gibbs said no more draft trades to Danny (Danny supposedly idolized Gibbs) but Vinny decided to go on a new path once Gibbs left. Gibbs in both stints was open about preferring veterans and working with Vinny seemed to overpay for his targets. Imagine if they did get the Bengals to agree to 2 first rounders for Chad Johnson, thankfully they were saved from that one.

I love Gibbs and I'll never know what would have happened if he came back but something tells me that coming after a year where he thought they'd win the Superbowl, he wouldn't make one of those vintage short sighted moves. I have more faith in Shanny at least in terms of the draft because it was his style for 10 years to amass draft picks. For Gibbs it was never the case, he would pretty much invariably go the opposite route. What they had in common is liking free agency but with some exceptions, Gibbs was much more aggressive in FA.

Many years ago, I picked up a little training in Basic Economics. That's really all you need to figure out how best to use the draft and free agency in the salary cap era. You don't need to have a degree in Economics like Belichik to figure it out. So, it still amazes me that, among three bright men like Dan, Joe and Vinny, not one of them realized they were doing it 180 degrees wrong.

[Hitman21ST]

I’m always very careful when I use the term “strawman argument” because it is a deliberate act as opposed to a simple misunderstanding. However, it’s not hard to tell when it’s a deliberate act. When courteous posters unintentionally misunderstand someone, they accept the writer’s clarification and they apologize. You argumentative types never apologize and never admit you were wrong. That’s how others can tell that you deliberately took the meaning you could easily attack.

We’re done.

Oldfan's rule #1 of debating: If you can't argue the against the post, attack the poster.

So no response to my comparing them in their primes, huh?

Maybe if you had just said "I meant in their primes" instead of coming across as holier than thou, I would have been more apt to apologize for the misunderstanding. I even acknowledged your "in their prime" comparison and you choose to ignore it to make a strawman of your own. If you want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, you need to do the same to me.

You have on multiple occasions gotten upset at people reading too much into what you post. So I made sure I didn't. I took what you said at face value, which is what you have wanted many times. Now you want me to read into what you were saying. Which is it?

[Swift]

How did you jump to the conclusion that fielding an entirely young team is the same thing as teaching them to quit? A young team can fight to the wire just as easily as an older team.

From your first sentence:

In recent threads, I’ve read several posters say that they want a team that goes all out to win every game, every season. They describe themselves as “competitors.” That might be true, but they are not very smart competitors.

Judging by your response, it looks like I may have misread what you were trying to say there. If all you're talking about is fielding younger players during a rebuilding year, then yeah, I actually agree with you.

[Skinsinparadise]

Many years ago, I picked up a little training in Basic Economics. That's really all you need to figure out how best to use the draft and free agency in the salary cap era. You don't need to have a degree in Economics like Belichik to figure it out. So, it still amazes me that, among three bright men like Dan, Joe and Vinny, not one of them realized they were doing it 180 degrees wrong.

It's not what I do professionally but i have a certificate in financial planning, i haven't really thought much about its application to the salary cap but reading about Gibbs/Cerrato/Synder my observations based on what I read is they aren't clinical enough about their thinking, they had at times an emotional, ad hoc and in the moment style about them. They zone in on targets and are willing to overpay, give too much, and sacrifice the future in order to hit their marks. I even presume they got a rush out of it. I am talking more Snyder and Cerrato then Gibbs. Hey its minute and we will rope in Haynesworth by 12:15 am, etc. And if you listen to Cerrato on the radio talk about these deals, he almost sounds giddy when he tells the tale.

When they target a player lets say Rocky McIntosh they will pay whatever it takes to get them without much regard to future consequence. Clinton Portis gets banged up, so lets get Duckett. B. Lloyd has a great game against them -- so he is a potential stud and lets trade picks and give him a salary that is commensurate with all pro status. They want to upgrade at safety, in their minds Archuleta is the best one on the block, they wow him with a huge salary so he signs on the dot and doesn't go to the Bears. I presume they believed they were clinical in their approach inasmuch as their targets matched their needs but IMO by overextending themselves in landing their targets in came at the expense of both the big picture that season (little depth, and players who weren't always hungry) and the future.

Edit: also while i loved Gibbs as a coach in his first stint, he was never as I recall a talent evaluator. I recall back when they drafted Desmond Howard, Gibbs said that he is a special player with "no holes". I'd even go as far and say there was an air of incompetence around Gibbs in stint 2. At least I never felt we would out coach (aside from the defense) the opposition or for that matter out negotiate Dhanny and the other GM's who fleeced us during that period.

[s0crates]

Edit: also while i loved Gibbs as a coach in his first stint, he was never as I recall a talent evaluator. I recall back when they drafted Desmond Howard, Gibbs said that he is a special player with "no holes". I'd even go as far and say there was an air of incompetence around Gibbs in stint 2. At least I never felt we would out coach (aside from the defense) the opposition or for that matter out negotiate Dhanny and the other GM's who fleeced us during that period.

RE: Gibbs II.

I think you are wrong about this. I will be the first to admit that Vinny was never very good, and even that Gibbs supported Vinny, but I cannot stand for you to say Gibbs II had "an air of incompetence." :mad:

Gibbs' teams were united and played with passion. Gibbs might not have always had the best players, but he always got the best from his players. Gibbs out-coached the entire NFC East in 2005, and rallied a team in crisis in 2007. If you do not think what we saw those two seasons is the product of good coaching, then I am at a loss for words (and that never happens). :pfft:

The one thing I think Gibbs II did wrong was to bring in Al Saunders. It cost him 2006.

RE: Gibbs ability to evaluate talent.

I understand Beathard did a lot of the legwork in this area when Gibbs was winning Super Bowls, but it was not like Gibbs had no say in the matter. For example, Gibbs was the one to recruit Riggins. For another example, Gibbs made the decision to bench Shroeder for Williams in the playoffs. I'm sure you could think of other examples.

Gibbs II took over a team with Patrick Ramsey, Lavarneous Coles, Trung Candidate, etc. He had a hand in bringing in guys like Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Sean Taylor, London Fletcher, Mike Sellers, etc.

I'm sure you could point to the many mistakes Gibbs made, as everybody makes mistakes, but there is no denying his success.

RE: Desmond Howard.

He was never worth what we spent on him, but come on. Not only did he win the Heisman, he won a Super Bowl MVP award too, no small accomplishments.

v6y3EjkFXRQ

Watch the video. Make sure to watch the ending.

He was not the worst pick.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 01:44 AM ----------

Alright, Homer, let me hit you with another idea. What you should be hoping for is that the team is struck with very bad luck this season.

No, never. I always hope to win. I am completely against tanking or hoping to lose. You play to win the game!

In 2005, the team got lots of breaks and finished 10-6. That convinced Gibbs that he was only a couple of players short of a championship level team. So, he charged into free agency to add the pieces he needed. When bad luck bit him in 2006, the six wins caused him to rethink his policy of trading picks for vets and trading up in the draft.

It was not bad luck that hit in 2006, it was Al Saunders that hit. The team lost its identity when Gibbs gave up control of the offense. In my opinion, this was Gibbs' one big mistake in his second tenure.

My point is that, like fans, coaches are easily misled by the results of a 16-game season. They think they're a ten-win team if they win ten. They think they are a six-win team if they win six when actually they could be an eight-win team with good luck one year and bad the next.

I believe that you are what your record says you are. A 10 win team is a 10 win team. A 6 win team is a 6 win team. I mean, is this not tautological?

Yes, luck can cause a team to win or lose more games than they "should have," speaking loosely. Obviously a lot depends on luck, things like weather and injuries effect seasons. That does not mean we should depend on luck though. We should control what we can control and not worry as much about what we cannot control.

No matter what we should always, always give it our best. Learning to win is more important than drafting high. Success breeds success.

[Oldfan]

sOcrates ~ No, never. I always hope to win. I am completely against tanking or hoping to lose. You play to win the game!

That’s one of those statements that initially has a nice ring to it, but when analyzed further, it falls flat. It’s like a general saying that he would never order a strategic retreat.

It was not bad luck that hit in 2006, it was Al Saunders that hit. The team lost its identity when Gibbs gave up control of the offense. In my opinion, this was Gibbs' one big mistake in his second tenure.

That’s a popular theory, but it does not account for the stretch run of 2007 when Al’s scheme with Todd Collins running it displayed the best offensive firepower we have seen since 1999.

I believe that you are what your record says you are. A 10 win team is a 10 win team. A 6 win team is a 6 win team. I mean, is this not tautological?

When the goal is to put a realistic grade on the team, your statement certainly is not a tautology since luck is always a factor to be weighed.

No matter what we should always, always give it our best. Learning to win is more important than drafting high. Success breeds success.

Is Mike Shanahan doing his best to win as many games as possible this season? Of course not. If he was, he would be keeping his old vets and signing many more. He would be trading draft picks for vets who could help him now as Gibbs did from 2004-2006. He would have been trading up in the draft to get a couple of players who could him win this season.

We want a younger roster with more potential to be winners in the future. All we can expect of those young players now is that they don’t quit when trying to win a game.

[Jericho]

Many years ago, I picked up a little training in Basic Economics. That's really all you need to figure out how best to use the draft and free agency in the salary cap era. You don't need to have a degree in Economics like Belichik to figure it out. So, it still amazes me that, among three bright men like Dan, Joe and Vinny, not one of them realized they were doing it 180 degrees wrong.

Part of it is impatience. The Redskins had plenty of holes to fill due to repeated poor drafting dating back to much of the Casserly era. There's only three ways to fill those holes: the draft, trade, or free agency. The draft is more uncertain, but also takes longer for most players to develop. Finding a known quantity is far easier with trades or free agency, even if its more expensive. And Dan's willingess to spend and manipulate the cap helped a bunch. If you could do it all through free agency, then that's great and ideal. You can still save your draft picks as a back-up plan. Problem is, free agency is often thin at the most important positions like WR, QB, LT, DE, etc... So you have to make trades to fill those holes too. And if you're Joe Gibbs (and older coach with past success), do you really want to wait two years developing guys through the draft or just go for it when guys who can play now?

Does not make it right, but helps explaining the rationale

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 10:14 AM ----------

As for the whole "mentor" thing, which I find really overblown by fans, break down the WR roster spots. Armstrong ain't a kid and got here thru perserverence and work. He doesn't need a mentor. Now, let's generously assume 6 WRs are kept and only 2 of the 3 vets (Moss, Gafney, Stallworth) are kept. Still, this leaves 2 mentors for 3 mentees. Are people really arguing for that ratio? We need to let youngsters go so the reainder have that level of mentorship? If so, I think we should save money on caoches and just fire the WR coach.

I kind of agree with you, but think you may take it to the extreme. Heading into free agency, you could easily argue the Redskins had the worse WR core in the league. It was Anthony Armstrong and a slew of unproven youngsters. And none of the youngsters were thought to be the second coming of Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald. So I think the team should have done something here. Not because you want to block younger players or need some sort of mentor, but football is a team game. If the WRs stink, the QBs will have trouble completing passes. And there are already enough questions about the QBs. And if the passing game overall stinks, then the running backs will have less holes to run with. And if Roy Helu faces an 8 man box every down, how's he supposed to develop and learn when every down is already stacked against him? Even decent WRs can go a long ways to help other positions develop.

Besides, who is going to make this roster if Moss and/or Gaffney was not around? Does the team really need to clear roster spots so Austin, Paul, Robinson, and Banks all get spots? We have no idea if any of these guys are legit NFL WRs. Don't forget this team drafted guys like Marko Mitchell, Taylor Jacobs, Darnerien McCants, Tydus Winans, and Cliff Russell at WR. Most of these guys barely proved enough to warrant an NFL roster spot. Let's not assume all the young guys will work out.

[Hitman21ST]

When the goal is to put a realistic grade on the team, your statement certainly is not a tautology since luck is always a factor to be weighed.

Luck plays both ways, even in one season. In general, your record tells who you are. You get the bounces one game, you don't the next. It evens out over a 16-game season.

Is Mike Shanahan doing his best to win as many games as possible this season? Of course not. If he was, he would be keeping his old vets and signing many more. He would be trading draft picks for vets who could help him now as Gibbs did from 2004-2006. He would have been trading up in the draft to get a couple of players who could him win this season.

Not true. There are other ways to make sure you win as many games as possible, especially in a shortened offseason where they wouldn't be able to pick up the system in time to be fully effective. Letting the younger players with experience in the system who have shown they are quality players, and bringing in vets to spots where the incumbents aren't up to snuff is exactly what you want to be doing.

[SwampEm]

I don;t think have a P and a PK in camp who are over 30 are going to crush us going forward.

[Oldfan]

I don;t think have a P and a PK in camp who are over 30 are going to crush us going forward.

As I said several times before, exceptions can be made for players and positions. But, a 37 year-old punter is not an exception -- neither is a 33 year-old kicker.

Yes, you are right that making exceptions at these positions won't crush us going forward. But, why make these exceptions? What is to be gained from them?

[Hitman21ST]

As I said several times before, exceptions can be made for players and positions. But, a 37 year-old punter is not an exception -- neither is a 33 year-old kicker.

Yes, you are right that making exceptions at these positions won't crush us going forward. But, why make these exceptions? What is to be gained from them?

Completely ignoring how Moss has been shown to be just as good as T.O. in their primes, huh? When someone makes a point you can't deny, ignore it. Good strategy :thumbsup:

[Rufus T Firefly]

I kind of agree with you, but think you may take it to the extreme. Heading into free agency, you could easily argue the Redskins had the worse WR core in the league. It was Anthony Armstrong and a slew of unproven youngsters. And none of the youngsters were thought to be the second coming of Calvin Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald. So I think the team should have done something here. Not because you want to block younger players or need some sort of mentor, but football is a team game. If the WRs stink, the QBs will have trouble completing passes. And there are already enough questions about the QBs. And if the passing game overall stinks, then the running backs will have less holes to run with. And if Roy Helu faces an 8 man box every down, how's he supposed to develop and learn when every down is already stacked against him? Even decent WRs can go a long ways to help other positions develop.

Besides, who is going to make this roster if Moss and/or Gaffney was not around? Does the team really need to clear roster spots so Austin, Paul, Robinson, and Banks all get spots? We have no idea if any of these guys are legit NFL WRs. Don't forget this team drafted guys like Marko Mitchell, Taylor Jacobs, Darnerien McCants, Tydus Winans, and Cliff Russell at WR. Most of these guys barely proved enough to warrant an NFL roster spot. Let's not assume all the young guys will work out.

Moss, Armstrong, Cooley, Davis, youngsters. To go into a season with that group would hardly present such a dearth of passcatchers that it would stunt the growth of the entire rest of the offense. And, for the record, there is no reason a RB can't develop against an extra man in the box. If you're going with that argument, then you should be wondering why the team didn't put a greater emphasis on veteran OLs to help the rest of the offense develop.

Granting Moss, Armstrong, and Hankerson three roster spots, that leaves 2 or 3 for Banks (a very good return man), Austin (who has shown a good deal of promise), Kelly (probably our most talented WR when healthy) and 2 draftees. That's not the dregs of the league there, it's a group with a good deal of talent. But we just ensured that we'll have to get rid of one extra of them so that we can keep Gafney, a player who either won't be around when the team is ready to contend, or will be requiring a new contract that could just as easily go to a similar or better player at that point. I'd rather keep the youngsters even if they only have a 5-10% chance of developing into something. And I really wouldn't argue against signing a Stallworth or Stokely type for low money just in case everything goes wrong with that group in the pre-season. But I wouldn't be sacrificing resources that could be used rebuilding just to guarantee that we'll keep one less young player.

What's funny about this argument is how people are defending the wisdom of the FO by saying we need vet WRs because it's so laughable to think we should give roster spots to the WRs that the same FO just drafted. Thereby defending their competence by implying that they couldn't possibly be expected to draft players who could possibly make the roster.

---------- Post added August-9th-2011 at 03:33 PM ----------

Completely ignoring how Moss has been shown to be just as good as T.O. in their primes, huh? When someone makes a point you can't deny, ignore it. Good strategy :thumbsup:

Seriously, dude. You compared Moss' best season by far to one of Owens' 5 or 6 best seasons. And Owens' was still better. And you're acting like you have established as fact that they were exactly equal players.

I'm not going to speak for Oldfan, but I'm guessing he's not ignoring your "point" because he was so devastated by the genius of it.

[Hitman21ST]

Seriously, dude. You compared Moss' best season by far to one of Owens' 5 or 6 best seasons. And Owens' was still better. And you're acting like you have established as fact that they were exactly equal players.

I'm not going to speak for Oldfan, but I'm guessing he's not ignoring your "point" because he was so devastated by the genius of it.

A) Owens had plenty of other good receivers to take the pressure off of him. Moss didn't.

Owens is a big receiver, so I would expect more touchdowns from him.

C) OF has made a habit of ignoring posts that he doesn't have an argument for.

D) I didn't say they were "exactly equal," I said that Moss has been just as good as T.O. There is a difference. Look at Welker and T.O.: Welker is "as good as" T.O., but he isn't T.O.'s equal, because T.O. is a bigger receiver and more of a threat in the Red Zone.

E) OF said that Moss was "never as good." Which isn't true. In their primes, Moss produced just as much as T.O. and Moss was better than T.O. last year and the year before. Either way you want to take what he said, Moss has shown to be as good. Not equals, but as good.

[Rufus T Firefly]

A) Owens had plenty of other good receivers to take the pressure off of him. Moss didn't.

Utter nonsense. Apart from the fact that TO always gets double-teamed, so whatever point you think you're making is moot anyway, here are some of the WRs who have started across from him: Tai Streets, Greg Lewis,Todd Pinkston, Patrick Crayton, Roy Williams. A real Hall of Fame roster there. He had a couple of years with Rice still near top form, but he produced his big numbers starting the last year Rice played with him, at age 38.

Owens is a big receiver, so I would expect more touchdowns from him.

So, he produces more, but there's a reason for it, so it doesn't count and therefore Moss is as good?

BRILLIANT !!!!!!

C) OF has made a habit of ignoring posts that he doesn't have an argument for.

Don't know or care if that's true, but it hardly redeems the nonsense you're posting.

D) I didn't say they were "exactly equal," I said that Moss has been just as good as T.O. There is a difference. Look at Welker and T.O.: Welker is "as good as" T.O., but he isn't T.O.'s equal, because T.O. is a bigger receiver and more of a threat in the Red Zone.

Irrelevant semantical nonsense, of which you are obviously a big fan (see below).

E) OF said that Moss was "never as good." Which isn't true. In their primes, Moss produced just as much as T.O. and Moss was better than T.O. last year and the year before.

This is exactly the kind of crap that gives message boards a bad name and which anyone who ignores should be applauded. You're trying to devolve an entire discussion by using OF's quote, taking what the words technically, semantically mean, even while knowing that it's not what he actually meant, and argue against it (and weakly, at that). Even when he clarified it, you still continue to harp on the exact wording of the quote. It has nothing to do with the discussion, it has nothing to do with the thread, and you damned well know it. But you think you scored some kind of a point, so you keep bringing it up and distracting the whole discussion into your pathetic attempts to pat yourself on the back for whatever you think you "won" in this ridiculous exchange.

Back to the actual argument. You tried backing up someone else's argument that Moss will produce as TO has as he ages. In the continuation of this argument you have:

a) Said that TO produces more because he's bigger and therefore the 2 of them aren't the same type of players.

Pointed out how well Moss has produced in his age 30 and 31 seasons compared to TO's age 36 and 37 seasons.

Your nonsensical arguments are basically eating each other at this point.

Either way you want to take what he said, Moss has shown to be as good. Not equals, but as good.

No he hasn't. Not in any way, shape or form and not to anyone with a lick of sense has that been shown. Not even close.

BTW, there is a good chance I will not waste my time responding to whatever you post in reply. If you need to tell yourself it's because your ninja-like logic skills so overwhelmed me that I retreated to live out my days in a shame-filled exile, knoock yourself out.

[AKM311]

I almost jumped into this arguing against Firefly.

Until I realized we are comparing Santana to TO and not Randy to TO. No way in hell can we compare Santana to TO. At least on the football field.

I would take Santana over TO, only because I cannot stand what TO brings to lockerooms. He is the exact type of person I would not be friends with.

[Hitman21ST]

BTW, there is a good chance I will not waste my time responding to whatever you post in reply. If you need to tell yourself it's because your ninja-like logic skills so overwhelmed me that I retreated to live out my days in a shame-filled exile, knoock yourself out.

Good job, you've now convinced yourself that you seem to know better than me, because you say so. All I know is, I'm agreeing with the coaching staff's decision because they know a hell of a lot more than me, you, and Oldfan.

If you don't want to respond, that's fine by me. Oldfan has argued against my posts when I take his posts for what he means, and then when I use his exact wording. He posts something vague that can be taken at least two different ways, then argues for the sake of arguing, saying that whichever way I took it was the wrong one, and that we should take him at his word because he says it. He then backs his arguments up by using arbitrary numbers that he came up with off the top of his head, and passes it off as gospel.

You're now doing the same thing. You say I'm arguing semantics by taking the words at face value, when the fact of the matter is, on a message board you generally need to put into words what you mean, or you're going to have people misinterpret it. When someone does that to an OF post, he then goes off on some tangent about how everyone makes strawman arguments and how he's the beacon of reason on the boards.

I'm fine with a good debate. OF doesn't want to debate though. He wants people to agree with him. I would absolutely love it if he could debate with me without immediately calling what I wrote a strawman or illogical, then bashing me for not agreeing with him. I know this because any time someone disagrees with him, he attacks the poster and doesn't even make an attempt at a civil discussion. Rather, he calls posts "nonsense," "strawmen," and the like.

[Hitman21ST]

One more thing: when two players have had their careers overlap, it is not illogical to do a side by side comparison for a specific year on when comparing them. If I say Young was never as good as Montana, it wouldn't be right, because when Montana was in K.C., Young was better. If I wanted to compare them in their primes, that's what I would say.

If someone misinterpreted what I said though, I wouldn't come out and call them argumentative then demand an apology, like what OF did. There are better ways of handling misinterpretations.