The Jarmon/Gaffney and Holliday/Hightower Trades in Hindsight

[aussieskin]

these picks showed their is a new sheriff in town the skina are no longer tha last payout kings of the NFL

[TSO]

It's not hindsight until the player leaves, or does something dramatic like helps win a Superbowl or fails like Haynesworth.

We don't know butkis yet how Gaffney and Hightower will end up doing.

What you, and many others, who posit this way of thinking continue to fail to understand is that this "hindsight" includes the players we traded away in Jarmon and Holliday. Both of whom have had little to no impact on their new teams and haven't, in anyway, caused us to miss them.

That, alone, is enough to say, in hindsight, that the trades were worth it. Even with the small, yet significant, amount of time Gaffney and Hightower have been here.

Both Holliday and Jarmon could've easily been cut after preseason and we wouldn't have missed a beat. No one would even be mentioning them right now. Yet, we got two productive players for them. Gaffney has already proven to be productive for the Skins and Hightower definitely seemed to be an important piece as well.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Never really thought much of Hightower but Gaffney is a real surprise for me.

Really good trades by the FO.

[SkinsTillIDie]

Gaffney may not be a game breaker but he is far and away the most consistent reciever we have. Possibly the most consistent player we have on offense. Jeremy Jarmon is no longer in the NFL. I think that is pretty cut and dry.

58 catches, 842 yards, 4 TD's. That's better than we've gotten out of a #2 in a long, long time.

64 catches for 919 yards and 5 touchdowns

at anyone who can't see that a 1000 yard receiver is more valuable than a player who's out of the league

[HailGreen28]

What you, and many others, who posit this way of thinking continue to fail to understand is that this "hindsight" includes the players we traded away in Jarmon and Holliday. Both of whom have had little to no impact on their new teams and haven't, in anyway, caused us to miss them.

That, alone, is enough to say, in hindsight, that the trades were worth it. Even with the small, yet significant, amount of time Gaffney and Hightower have been here.

Both Holliday and Jarmon could've easily been cut after preseason and we wouldn't have missed a beat. No one would even be mentioning them right now. Yet, we got two productive players for them. Gaffney has already proven to be productive for the Skins and Hightower definitely seemed to be an important piece as well.

It's not any "failing to understand". It's proper use of english, and a better perspective.

Hindsight is looking back at the past. You and others are attempting to call works in progress "hindsight". Now if you'd say something like "so far" you'd be right.

It's still undecided how the trades work out. I agree since Holliday and Jarmon haven't done anything, it looks like break even at worst, but we don't know. Late in the 2008 season, didn't Horton look pretty good for us at safety? How'd that work out?

Two examples: If it turns out we should have been giving Helu or Royster the carries all along, that 6th(?) we gave up for Hightower becomes a small loss for us, a wasted move if we really should have given the young backs more playing time.

With Jarmon cut from Denver, this deal looks to be in our favor, but say something happens to Gafney where he can't play or is ineffective next season (he's 31), and it's big freakin deal. Not much better than breakeven, seeing how we did nothing this season.

Hindsight?

[Dirt]

It's not any "failing to understand". It's proper use of english, and a better perspective.

Two examples: If it turns out we should have been giving Helu or Royster the carries all along, that 6th(?) we gave up for Hightower becomes a small loss for us, a wasted move if we really should have given the young backs more playing time.

With Jarmon cut from Denver, this deal looks to be in our favor, but say something happens to Gafney where he can't play or is ineffective next season (he's 31), and it's big freakin deal. Not much better than breakeven, seeing how we did nothing this season.

Now hold on...just how many games will be enough to say "okay now it's fair to evaluate him"? You said it basically doesn't matter until either we WIN A SUPERBOWL (really?), or become a big problem like Hayensworth? Isn't that a little much? Does helping the offense perform the way it's written up (as Gaffney has) not help/prove anything?

No, there wasn't this big praise and hope for Horton, he made a couple good plays vs New Orleans, and a few people got excited about it. How does that possibly compare to a 850yd receiving season? Gaffney clearly works in this system, what's the problem? It won't definitely mean a superbowl? Sorry. This reminds me of the 'lose for draft pick' thinking, in that it implies games on Sunday don't matter unless we're one of the best teams in the league.

No, we shouldn't have just given Helu/Royster the job from day one. ..what if one of them went down? It's a good thing the RB crew was deep enough. You can't just assume that Helu would have been as good as he is if he started week 1.

All this thread is saying (the recent bump especially) is that it's refreshing to see trades that makes sense from this team. Both Hightower and Gaffney have been productive, and it's not like their presence is getting in the way of anything else. We're excited about the wise moves of our FO, and you're basically ****ting on it because they're not 'good enough'? Because it's not likely Gaffney leads us to a superbowl??? Really?? Can we just enjoy it? Merry Christmas?

[CPORTISFAN999]

Gaffney may not be a game breaker but he is far and away the most consistent reciever we have. Possibly the most consistent player we have on offense. Jeremy Jarmon is no longer in the NFL. I think that is pretty cut and dry.

58 catches, 842 yards, 4 TD's. That's better than we've gotten out of a #2 in a long, long time.

60-something catches, 919 yards and 5 TDs actually. after todays game

[Cpt.Chaos47]

It's not any "failing to understand". It's proper use of english, and a better perspective.

Hindsight is looking back at the past. You and others are attempting to call works in progress "hindsight". Now if you'd say something like "so far" you'd be right.

It's still undecided how the trades work out. I agree since Holliday and Jarmon haven't done anything, it looks like break even at worst, but we don't know. Late in the 2008 season, didn't Horton look pretty good for us at safety? How'd that work out?

Two examples: If it turns out we should have been giving Helu or Royster the carries all along, that 6th(?) we gave up for Hightower becomes a small loss for us, a wasted move if we really should have given the young backs more playing time.

With Jarmon cut from Denver, this deal looks to be in our favor, but say something happens to Gafney where he can't play or is ineffective next season (he's 31), and it's big freakin deal. Not much better than breakeven, seeing how we did nothing this season.

Hindsight?

Hindsight doesn't mean distant past.Its the perception of the nature of an event after it has happened. The trades happened before the season and now that the season is almost over you can say "in hindsight" they were good trades. Considering we traded Jarmon whom isn't even in the league right now for Gaffney. The guy has 64 grabs almost 1000 yards and 5 TDs. You can't or shouldn't judge the trades by what the team has done, but rather what each individual has done and most likely will do. I can't see Jarmon nor Holliday ever having a real impact for any team. Gaffney and Hightower on the other hand have already made an impact for the Skins; Hightower to a lessar extent but he still played well before injury derailed his season. Truthfully what it boils down to is we traded 2 players that otherwise wouldn't have made the team and got upgraded two areas of need. I as most people would call that a damn good trade

[TSO]

Ok, HG28, I guess you find it perfectly suitable to argue semantics, lol.

That's petty and, yes, hindsight is used loosely to also mean anything in the past, not the far past as you so want to narrow it down to. Please don't try to make this about linguistics, considering you'd lose that battle by the very definition of hindsight. Example: I decided to smack my brother in the face for acting silly, in hindsight, that probably was a bad idea.

You wouldn't actually tell someone who wrote that sentence they used "hindsight" improperly, would you?

Also, you failed to provide any semblance of a rebuttal to the point I made in the post you responded to. Instead, you focused on semantics. The fact remains, ANY production out of Gaffney and Hightower make the trades good simply because we did not miss/need either player we traded away. Had Holliday and Jarmon been important pieces on their respective teams and had we needed depth at their positions, the argument could be made. However, as it stands, those guys would've most likely been cut by us anyway. So, essentially, we got a solid no. 2 WR who has already produced like one this year and a potential stud at RB for NOTHING.

The only question is that 6th rounder we also gave up for Hightower. That can be used in a rebuttal of my position, for sure. So only Hightower still has to be more productive to prove worthy of the trade... but I'm already a believer that he was from what I've seen from him this year.

[Warhead36]

Hightower, even with his injury, has probably contributed more to our season than Holiday has to the Cardinals. Only way we lose this trade is if that 6th round pick turns out to be an impact player, an unlikely event but again one that is possible.

We obviously destroyed the Broncos in the Gaffney trade as we got him for a guy who's not even on an NFL roster anymore.

[HailGreen28]

Now hold on...just how many games will be enough to say "okay now it's fair to evaluate him"? You said it basically doesn't matter until either we WIN A SUPERBOWL (really?), or become a big problem like Hayensworth? Isn't that a little much? Does helping the offense perform the way it's written up (as Gaffney has) not help/prove anything?

If you're going to evaluate a players tenure here before it's over, then yes only something as dramatic as a SUPERBOWL or HAYNESWORTH TYPE FAIL is worth declaring what the results of a trade are, IN HINDSIGHT. I'm not saying that this season Gaffney hasn't been a success. But we don't know if this will be a solid longterm move for us, or just a 1-2 year rental. Remember that Gaffney is 31.

No, there wasn't this big praise and hope for Horton, he made a couple good plays vs New Orleans, and a few people got excited about it. How does that possibly compare to a 850yd receiving season? Gaffney clearly works in this system, what's the problem? It won't definitely mean a superbowl? Sorry. This reminds me of the 'lose for draft pick' thinking, in that it implies games on Sunday don't matter unless we're one of the best teams in the league.

Lol, you don't remember all the "Predator" hype on this board, especially after the Dallass game in Dallas that year?

My point is at the end of Horton's first season, that draft pick looked a whole lot better than it turned out to be. We don't know with any hindsight how the Gaffney trade will ultimately work out, except that it hasn't been a bust.

No, we shouldn't have just given Helu/Royster the job from day one. ..what if one of them went down? It's a good thing the RB crew was deep enough. You can't just assume that Helu would have been as good as he is if he started week 1.

We had (and have) a logjam at RB with Helu, Royster, and Torrain who looked great early this season and last season when healthy. We would have been fine if Helu or Royster went down early in the season. And the more playing time for our rookie RBs, the better. This is not disputable, especially with how Helu and Royster have stepped up.

(A logjam at RB is OK in modern NFL, just saying)

All this thread is saying (the recent bump especially) is that it's refreshing to see trades that makes sense from this team. Both Hightower and Gaffney have been productive, and it's not like their presence is getting in the way of anything else. We're excited about the wise moves of our FO, and you're basically ****ting on it because they're not 'good enough'? Because it's not likely Gaffney leads us to a superbowl??? Really?? Can we just enjoy it? Merry Christmas?

Read over what I said before. I'm not saying either trade was bad. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to use current events to talk about things "in hindsight".

Sure we can pat ourselves on the back over Shanahallen's trades. Just don't go overboard when we don't know if these trades were just short term bandaids, like the previous regime's trades were. Let's have a little higher standards; like our FO who didn't give up much for these guys, which was a welcome break from the previous management.

Merry Christmas!

---------- Post added December-25th-2011 at 07:52 PM ----------

Hindsight doesn't mean distant past.Its the perception of the nature of an event after it has happened. The trades happened before the season and now that the season is almost over you can say "in hindsight" they were good trades. Considering we traded Jarmon whom isn't even in the league right now for Gaffney. The guy has 64 grabs almost 1000 yards and 5 TDs. You can't or shouldn't judge the trades by what the team has done, but rather what each individual has done and most likely will do. I can't see Jarmon nor Holliday ever having a real impact for any team. Gaffney and Hightower on the other hand have already made an impact for the Skins; Hightower to a lessar extent but he still played well before injury derailed his season. Truthfully what it boils down to is we traded 2 players that otherwise wouldn't have made the team and got upgraded two areas of need. I as most people would call that a damn good trade

Hindsight doesn't mean using current events to make judgements either. It means "Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred."

I know a large part of this fanbase is still in "instant gratification mode", in part because that's how our team has been mostly run the last decade or so. But can we wait longer than not even one season, less than a year, when the players in question are just starting to find their roles, like Gaffney becoming our #1 WR, before we start talking about "hindsight"?

---------- Post added December-25th-2011 at 08:21 PM ----------

Ok, HG28, I guess you find it perfectly suitable to argue semantics, lol.

That's petty and, yes, hindsight is used loosely to also mean anything in the past, not the far past as you so want to narrow it down to. Please don't try to make this about linguistics, considering you'd lose that battle by the very definition of hindsight.

Wrong. See the dictionary link above. Here's another one: Hind·sight - noun - recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence. You're not talking about the past, you're trying to use current events to judge recent trades. Not hindsight.

If you want to keep digging yourself in, arguing against dictionaries, I guess it's your choice.

On topic: If we get a good #1 WR this coming draft, the Gaffney trade becomes much less significant. Same if Jabar loses a step next season. Given that we gave up practically nothing, unless that 6th becomes a darn good player (Shanny's last draft that would have been either Royster or Aldrick Robinson, so not an automatically negligible pick), it still looks like a gain for us. How much of a gain? Hard to tell, it's too early to look on the results of this deal in hindsight.

Example: I decided to smack my brother in the face for acting silly, in hindsight, that probably was a bad idea. You wouldn't actually tell someone who wrote that sentence they used "hindsight" improperly, would you?

Without an explanation WHY it was a bad idea, it's sloppy usage on your part. Like your misunderstanding english usage above. You do know now, that using results still in progress, to evaluate the recent past, isn't hindsight, right?

Also, you failed to provide any semblance of a rebuttal to the point I made in the post you responded to. Instead, you focused on semantics.

Please reread and don't skip over my pointing out, that we don't know how things will turn out, like my Horton example. It's in the same post you just quoted.

The fact remains, ANY production out of Gaffney and Hightower make the trades good simply because we did not miss/need either player we traded away. Had Holliday and Jarmon been important pieces on their respective teams and had we needed depth at their positions, the argument could be made. However, as it stands, those guys would've most likely been cut by us anyway. So, essentially, we got a solid no. 2 WR who has already produced like one this year and a potential stud at RB for NOTHING.

Actually, I think Gaffney's been our #1, so maybe I'm higher on his performance this year than you are, lol. Again, HOW good these trades are remains to be seen.

The only question is that 6th rounder we also gave up for Hightower. That can be used in a rebuttal of my position, for sure. So only Hightower still has to be more productive to prove worthy of the trade... but I'm already a believer that he was from what I've seen from him this year.

That's true, hope like you do that HT turns out to be stud. But we're not talking "hindsight" now, are we?

Geez, if the dictionaries aren't proof enough that looking at the Gaffney trade can't be done in hindsight, how about the fact we traded a 2012 pick for him. How do you evaluate a draft pick in 2012 in hindsight, let alone how a player will perform that same year?

Regardless, Merry Christmas!

[TSO]

Wrong. See the dictionary link above. Here's another one: Hind·sight - noun - recognition of the realities, possibilities, or requirements of a situation, event, decision etc., after its occurrence. You're not talking about the past, you're trying to use current events to judge recent trades. Not hindsight.

Wait, did I make this thread before the trade occurred or after? Did I not specifically state, in the title, that the subject of this thread were the trades which HAPPENED IN THE PAST? Heck, if I said it even one minute after it occurred, then by the literal definition of the word it becomes hindsight with the sole condition that it occurred in the past.

Furthermore, the definition of hindsight also includes the possibilities of said event. Do I need to give you a definition of the word "possibilities" or can you acknowledge that this word includes within it future results that are yet unknown?

So, basically, that definition proved me perfectly right yet somehow you managed to continue writing as if it was the other way around? Then, you had the audacity to say I was digging myself into a hole?

Wow... that takes a special kind of ego, lol.

Without an explanation WHY it was a bad idea, it's sloppy usage on your part. Like your misunderstanding english usage above. You do know now, that using results still in progress, to evaluate the recent past, isn't hindsight, right?

And herein lies the incredibly damaging flaw in your logic... that the "results" are "still in progress". Uhm, we have plenty of results. As I stated a million times already, one result is that we acquired players who were productive for their previous teams for very little (players who most likely would've been cut on our team and haven't produced on the teams they were traded to). The only question that remains in terms of that result is how the 6th round pick included for Hightower pans out. Still, that's an overall good result. You make those trades every time.

Another result is that both Gaffney and Hightower looked very capable during the preseason, which was when I made the thread.

Finally, we have a full season "resulting" in stats for both players to look at. Hightower is obviously incomplete since he got hurt halfway through, but he was anything but bad. Gaffney was excellent and, perhaps, the best no. 2 WR we've had here in a decade.

So, in hindsight of ONE SEASON, we can say that these were good trades because 1) They cost us next to nothing and 2) Both players produced, with one producing exceptionally well.

So, yeah... plenty of results IN HINDSIGHT!

Heck, even if we get absolutely nothing else from them after this season, those results still stand IN HINDSIGHT.

Please reread and don't skip over my pointing out, that we don't know how things will turn out, like my Horton example. It's in the same post you just quoted.

I don't need to re-read anything, you fail to miss the point that there are already results we can evaluate. You are trying to limit the definition of hindsight whereas, by it's very definition, there is no time limit to evaluate something. In fact, as long as that thing you are referring to occurred in the past (which the trades fall under) than you can judge them in hindsight. It may be "slight" hindsight, but it's hindsight.

Furthermore, in the case of these trades, we don't need much in the way of results to judge them. Almost immediately after they occurred, we can judge them as good trades simply because we only lost two players who most likely would've been cut anyway and didn't fit here anymore as well as a late round pick that is a crapshoot a lot of the times. We got something for nothing, in essence.

For example, if Gaffney had a career-ending injury the instant he took his first snap as a Redskin, that still would make the trade good since the philosophy of acquiring productive players from another team by trading away a player who doesn't fit your team (Jarmon had no place in the 3-4 which was very clear last season) is a good philosophy no matter how you slice it.

So, you see, IN HINDSIGHT the trade (which was an event that occurred in the past) was immediately a good one due to that fact alone.

Without an explanation WHY it was a bad idea, it's sloppy usage on your part. Like your misunderstanding english usage above. You do know now, that using results still in progress, to evaluate the recent past, isn't hindsight, right?

This was a response to my quote here:

Example: I decided to smack my brother in the face for acting silly, in hindsight, that probably was a bad idea. You wouldn't actually tell someone who wrote that sentence they used "hindsight" improperly, would you?

lol, I feel bad for any sibling of yours. :pfft:

You actually need an explanation as to why smacking him in the face for acting silly would be a bad idea? You wouldn't immediately view that act, in hindsight, as wrong? You need to see its results?

Happy Holidays, man... but I'm sorry that post just made you look even more petty here. You're literally arguing semantics and it's unfortunate.

[Cpt.Chaos47]

This has become ridiculous. Both trades were good trades unlike the trades we got used to seeing around here under Cerrato. We gave up 2 players that wouldn't have made the team and a 6th round pick for 2 productive players. Plus we got a 6th rounder this year and next year in the McNabb trade which we all can agree was highway robbery.Its just too bad we had him in the first place. With exception of the original McNabb trade the moves Shanny and Allen have made have been A+. The wheeling and dealing that was done in the draft to get extra picks was great to see. I have a feeling we will look back at that draft in a few years as the building block to a perennial playoff contender.

[HailGreen28]

Happy Holidays to you too, submitted. Try not to get too worked up over this. We're nearly all Skins fans here.

Wait, did I make this thread before the trade occurred or after? Did I not specifically state, in the title, that the subject of this thread were the trades which HAPPENED IN THE PAST? Heck, if I said it even one minute after it occurred, then by the literal definition of the word it becomes hindsight with the sole condition that it occurred in the past.

Furthermore, the definition of hindsight also includes the possibilities of said event. Do I need to give you a definition of the word "possibilities" or can you acknowledge that this word includes within it future results that are yet unknown?

So, basically, that definition proved me perfectly right yet somehow you managed to continue writing as if it was the other way around? Then, you had the audacity to say I was digging myself into a hole?

Wow... that takes a special kind of ego, lol.

You don't understand what hindsight is, discussing things after the fact. And you don't even realize that pick we traded for HT hasn't even been used yet. So we aren't just talking about past events. Please reread the dictionary links I gave, and even check out related thesaurus suggestions for "hindsight" from said links.

I know the use of "hindsight" is a nitpick, but it underlines a problem with you and most of our fanbase. Too much "instant gratification", not enough seeing things through. Snap judgements on trades under a year after they were made, are foolish.

And herein lies the incredibly damaging flaw in your logic... that the "results" are "still in progress". Uhm, we have plenty of results. As I stated a million times already, one result is that we acquired players who were productive for their previous teams for very little (players who most likely would've been cut on our team and haven't produced on the teams they were traded to). The only question that remains in terms of that result is how the 6th round pick included for Hightower pans out. Still, that's an overall good result. You make those trades every time.

Another result is that both Gaffney and Hightower looked very capable during the preseason, which was when I made the thread.

Finally, we have a full season "resulting" in stats for both players to look at. Hightower is obviously incomplete since he got hurt halfway through, but he was anything but bad. Gaffney was excellent and, perhaps, the best no. 2 WR we've had here in a decade.

So, in hindsight of ONE SEASON, we can say that these were good trades because 1) They cost us next to nothing and 2) Both players produced, with one producing exceptionally well.

So, yeah... plenty of results IN HINDSIGHT!

Heck, even if we get absolutely nothing else from them after this season, those results still stand IN HINDSIGHT.

You keep using a word you don't understand.

You know the trade isn't even technically over since the pick hasn't been spent, even if it's not conditional, right?

What if Jarmon goes on to a James Harrison-type career? Does that possibility count as hindsight?

All I'm saying is. english is a valuable tool when used precisely, and our fanbase should take a longer view of things, IMO.

I don't need to re-read anything,

Then you completely miss the point I was making. In as short time frame as you're using here, the Horton pick looked good. This turned out not to be true. The HT and Gaffney trades could still look like much ado about nothing. You don't know, let alone know in hindsight.

you fail to miss the point that there are already results we can evaluate.

Thank you.

you are trying to limit the definition of hindsight whereas, by it's very definition, there is no time limit to evaluate something. In fact, as long as that thing you are referring to occurred in the past (which the trades fall under) than you can judge them in hindsight. It may be "slight" hindsight, but it's hindsight.

Ummm, no, hindsight is about evaluating things in the past. As opposed to foresight, which I hope you don't think means evaluating current events either. BTW - How can you evaluate a trade involving picks, till you know anything about what the pick was used for?

Furthermore, in the case of these trades, we don't need much in the way of results to judge them. Almost immediately after they occurred, we can judge them as good trades simply because we only lost two players who most likely would've been cut anyway and didn't fit here anymore as well as a late round pick that is a crapshoot a lot of the times. We got something for nothing, in essence.

For example, if Gaffney had a career-ending injury the instant he took his first snap as a Redskin, that still would make the trade good since the philosophy of acquiring productive players from another team by trading away a player who doesn't fit your team (Jarmon had no place in the 3-4 which was very clear last season) is a good philosophy no matter how you slice it.

So, you see, IN HINDSIGHT the trade (which was an event that occurred in the past) was immediately a good one due to that fact alone.

And if HT and Gaffney are short term rentals, and Jarmon catches on somewhere else, or we get outbid for RGIII by a 6th rounder... then what. This "hindsight" view you're talking about isn't hindsight, is it? This is why Skins fans need to be smarter and take a longer view. Not declare things in "hindsight" when they aren't.

For the last decade or so, we've taken deals where a player has lasted only a short time, ans we ended up having to replace that player anyways. Like Pete Kendall. Good short term solution, not good for the team long term. THAT'S the criteria we should use, if we want to be a good team. Not evaluating trade less than one year later as if it was "hindsight" already.

lol, I feel bad for any sibling of yours. :pfft:

You actually need an explanation as to why smacking him in the face for acting silly would be a bad idea? You wouldn't immediately view that act, in hindsight, as wrong? You need to see its results?

I have no idea what happened between you and your sibling. Nor any reference point to draw on from my own siblings, if you know what I mean. Do you?

Happy Holidays, man... but I'm sorry that post just made you look even more petty here. You're literally arguing semantics and it's unfortunate.

Understanding words like hindsight and fail. Taking a wiser view on trades. Knowing about examples like Horton and Kendall (there are others you should already know about) being poor evaluations after less than a year. Not bringing in hitting a sibling as an sloppy example. Yeah, I'M the petty one.

Just think about what I said, even if you disagree with it. I'm not saying the trades have been bad so far. You've completely missed at least one major point I brought up (Horton), and should think more about another you did mention (the 6th rounder). Above all, best wishes.

(and stop hitting your siblings! )

---------- Post added December-26th-2011 at 11:17 AM ----------

This has become ridiculous. Both trades were good trades unlike the trades we got used to seeing around here under Cerrato. We gave up 2 players that wouldn't have made the team and a 6th round pick for 2 productive players. Plus we got a 6th rounder this year and next year in the McNabb trade which we all can agree was highway robbery.Its just too bad we had him in the first place. With exception of the original McNabb trade the moves Shanny and Allen have made have been A+. The wheeling and dealing that was done in the draft to get extra picks was great to see. I have a feeling we will look back at that draft in a few years as the building block to a perennial playoff contender.

Yeah, they are different than Carrato's dealings, especially price tags on those deals and the draft trade-downs. One thing to caution is are these trades short-term fixes we'll have to evaluate later, or maybe unnecessary/wrong player with HT?

Yeah, it's nice to see players stumble after they leave us, instead of only looking bad with us. Wish the players better, but it's a good sign for us trade-wise and team-wise.

[LuRedskins]

personally i would say the gaffney trade became good the second he made our 53 man roster, and jarmon got cut from the broncos. another good way to look at it is from the other teams point of view. im sure the broncos think they got the **** end of this trade, and if jarmon goes on to become a good player it would be even worse for them. the hightower trade has been good so far and it unlikely a 6th round pick will contribute much, and his blocking skills could be helping our young rb's more than we know

[Fear Our D!]

oh yay! A perfectly good thread is probably gonna get closed because two guys are arguing over the definition of a word! :jump:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

There is no intelligent argument that can be made for saying the Gaffney and Hightower trades were not successful ones, hindsight or otherwise (no matter HOW you want to define the word lol)...

There is no possible way that the Gaffney trade could not end up being defined as "good". None.

There is only one possible way to determine if the Hightower trade did not end up being "good", and that's if we could split reality into two and see who we would have drafted with that 6th round pick and then also see how they would have panned out. Since that is impossible to do other than in the minds of delusional sports fans , I don't see the need to even bring it up as a perspective to consider.

Jarmon is out of the league. Holliday will most likely be out of the league after this season due to his age. For all intents and purposes, the Redskins said "Give me two starters for this 6th round pick"...only Vinny Cerrato would claim that's not an absolute steal.

[8181]

We got to evaluate four different players in real game settings, and neither of our post-trade players are considerably worse contributors... Gaffney being a huge contributor... We won the Gaffney trade obviously...

The Hightower trade depends on if he comes back and what the two guys do next season... At worst, it's a wash.

[TSO]

oh yay! A perfectly good thread is probably gonna get closed because two guys are arguing over the definition of a word! :jump:

You're telling me, lol!? One of those guys is the one who made this thread!

I honestly can't believe he's this adamant about arguing semantics, even when the definition of the word "hindsight" is based on past events and includes future possibilities. Ugh.

And HG28, please don't tell me something as foolish and judgmental as "you and others like you want instant gratification". Just a precursory knowledge of my posting history here would prove to you that is incredibly ignorant as to my stances on all things Redskins football. I've been extremely patient when it comes to any coach/player/move made by this organization and always defend any rash judgments made on them.

But, seeing as your arguments are so weak, I see why you needed to build a straw man and paint me in a certain way to justify your continued pettiness.

So, whatever, keep arguing semantics. It's embarrassing. I honestly feel bad for you at this point. There wasn't one point in your passive-aggressive post where you refute any statement I made in regards to the definition of "hindsight" YOU POSTED. Furthermore, as I've stated a billion times already, every trade/draft pick you mention in comparison FAILS because we had no results other than what we gave up in draft picks from those trades (Kendall). Again, the Gaffney and Hightower trades DO NOT fall under the same comparison simply because we gave up next to nothing for them and they've already produced.

Oh, and when it comes to Horton, that's an awful example. In hindsight, picking Horton where we did (I believe he was a 7th round pick) still wasn't bad. It's arguable the one good year he gave us was worth it simply because the vast majority of 7th rounders don't pan out and/or produce anything. Furthermore, he was drafted to fit the 4-3 Blache ran since it was exactly the same thing he did in college and he did fit it well.

So keep arguing semantics and disrespectfully implying I don't know proper usage of English. Shame on you, honestly. Fortunately, it's clear you have little to no support from anyone reading your petty arguments. You've ruined a perfectly good thread with this silly bickering over the proper use of hindsight, a term which by its very definition applies perfectly fine to my statement. You couldn't refute the fact that within the definition of hindsight contains the exact conditions this thread's premise was based upon, yet you continue your crusade out of pride.

You can have the last word, sir. I'm done with it.

[HailGreen28]

You're telling me, lol!? One of those guys is the one who made this thread!

I honestly can't believe he's this adamant about arguing semantics, even when the definition of the word "hindsight" is based on past events and includes future possibilities. Ugh.

And HG28, please don't tell me something as foolish and judgmental as "you and others like you want instant gratification". Just a precursory knowledge of my posting history here would prove to you that is incredibly ignorant as to my stances on all things Redskins football. I've been extremely patient when it comes to any coach/player/move made by this organization and always defend any rash judgments made on them.

But, seeing as your arguments are so weak, I see why you needed to build a straw man and paint me in a certain way to justify your continued pettiness.

So, whatever, keep arguing semantics. It's embarrassing. I honestly feel bad for you at this point. There wasn't one point in your passive-aggressive post where you refute any statement I made in regards to the definition of "hindsight" YOU POSTED. Furthermore, as I've stated a billion times already, every trade/draft pick you mention in comparison FAILS because we had no results other than what we gave up in draft picks from those trades (Kendall). Again, the Gaffney and Hightower trades DO NOT fall under the same comparison simply because we gave up next to nothing for them and they've already produced.

Oh, and when it comes to Horton, that's an awful example. In hindsight, picking Horton where we did (I believe he was a 7th round pick) still wasn't bad. It's arguable the one good year he gave us was worth it simply because the vast majority of 7th rounders don't pan out and/or produce anything. Furthermore, he was drafted to fit the 4-3 Blache ran since it was exactly the same thing he did in college and he did fit it well.

So keep arguing semantics and disrespectfully implying I don't know proper usage of English. Shame on you, honestly. Fortunately, it's clear you have little to no support from anyone reading your petty arguments. You've ruined a perfectly good thread with this silly bickering over the proper use of hindsight, a term which by its very definition applies perfectly fine to my statement. You couldn't refute the fact that within the definition of hindsight contains the exact conditions this thread's premise was based upon, yet you continue your crusade out of pride.

You can have the last word, sir. I'm done with it.

Thanks. Last word.

It's a good thread, and good points by various people. We know the trades aren't high priced busts, which is a welcome departure from the Vinny Show. Here's hoping these trades have lasting benefits for the team, instead of short term fixes like previous regimes had to redo over and over again. We'll see, though not from hindsight right now.

Submitted, I think you still don't understand what the Horton example represents, how little you know how a player will ultimately turn out after one season, but it's your choice to not see it that way. Or agree on word definitions, but it's ok. Take it easy, and happy holidays!

HTTR

[The Dude]

To re-iterate, we got Hightower and Gaffney, two very productive players, one still very young and the other still in his prime for guys, in all likelihood, we would have cut come tomorrow. We did this before the rest of the NFL knew that. Just incredible.

"Incredible" is the right word, but you won't hear it on ESPN. The Skins basically hoodwinked the entire league and made some of the savviest roster moves in years. Yet you won't hear anyone mention it except here. Good post.

[KCClybun]

I think somehow we'll find a way to bring Tim Hightower back. The way he played, practiced and composed himself before he got hurt probably earned him a job. And that would be one hell of a backfield to deal with, it seems; Hightower, Helu and Royster? Pffffft...we'd be like the Saints. They've got three running backs with over 400 yards rushing and are 6th in the league in rushing. It'd drive fantasy football owners crazy, but we'd be set at running back.

I remember everyone saying that Gaffney would be, like, fifth on the depth chart and being all upset when he came in as was marked as a starter. Now he's a starter and been our most consistent receiver. He's not a game breaker, but to me, he's just what we needed; a chain mover. A possession receiver. And not in the negative since, but just getting us those tough catches.

Those two trades were great trades no matter what way you look at. We actually came back on the POSITIVE side of a trade. Who knew?

[DavidGQ]

Not sure why there are arguments over this. Clearly, Gaffney and HT perform a lot better than the 2 players we traded away. I remember the uproar about Jarmon and how he will make Mike/Bruce look like poo poo on that trade. I also remember how others said that McNabb will be back in his Pro Bowl level w/ Vikings and Albert with Patriots. Guess Mike and Bruce don't have a clue what they're doing on those trades. The fans here over value our players. We are still a couple of drafts and FA away from being a contender. April is so far away

[HailGreen28]

I think somehow we'll find a way to bring Tim Hightower back. The way he played, practiced and composed himself before he got hurt probably earned him a job. And that would be one hell of a backfield to deal with, it seems; Hightower, Helu and Royster? Pffffft...we'd be like the Saints. They've got three running backs with over 400 yards rushing and are 6th in the league in rushing. It'd drive fantasy football owners crazy, but we'd be set at running back.

I remember everyone saying that Gaffney would be, like, fifth on the depth chart and being all upset when he came in as was marked as a starter. Now he's a starter and been our most consistent receiver. He's not a game breaker, but to me, he's just what we needed; a chain mover. A possession receiver. And not in the negative since, but just getting us those tough catches.

Those two trades were great trades no matter what way you look at. We actually came back on the POSITIVE side of a trade. Who knew?

True. But I'm thinking Hightower's going to be lose his starter position to Helu or Royster next season, and Gaffney face serious competition from Hankerson. Still depth is a good thing. At least we're not throwing to all smurfs anymore, or rely on one guy like when we had Clinton Portis.

---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 01:51 PM ----------

"Incredible" is the right word, but you won't hear it on ESPN. The Skins basically hoodwinked the entire league and made some of the savviest roster moves in years. Yet you won't hear anyone mention it except here. Good post.

Savviest would be like the Pats getting Moss and Welker, or what the Eagles did to us with McNabb.

Looking at Shanny's whole body of work is a whole more to get excited about. If this team does well the next couple years, direct that kind of praise to our last draft.