Scott McCloughan: Honest Evaluation and Contract Renewal

[skinzplay]

I think he's doing a solid job of team building, and team building takes time. I like the trajectory we're on, and when he gets in on the D this off-season, it should be very interesting..

[Darrell Green Fan]

Let's not forget the impact Galette will have next year.  From what I read reconstructed achilles are stronger than the original, little risk of another rupture and no loss of explosion.

[RedBeast]

6 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Let's not forget the impact Galette will have next year.  From what I read reconstructed achilles are stronger than the original, little risk of another rupture and no loss of explosion.

Let's hope you're right...

 

If one bell should ring
In celebration for a king
So fast the heart should beat
As proud the head with heavy feet

Days went by when you and I
Bathed in eternal summer's glow
As far away and distant
Our mutual child did grow

Oh the sweet refrain
Soothes the soul and calms the pain
Albion remains
Sleeping now to rise again

 

 

[justice98]

9 hours ago, Hail2theSkins24 said:

@elkabong82 In multiple posts I've stated to ignore those guys. Today's win felt great, first game all year where it was a comfortable win. But I don't think anyone's opinion has changed. We have an elite QB in a system that fits him perfectly, we are going to put up points. It still doesn't hide the struggle in our run game while the game was competitive. 5 INT's was awesome, Preston Smith making an impact even better, but sheesh Matt frickin' Barkley moved the ball with ease against our defense. There are several holes that Scot needs to address, and I'm willing to bet he does

 

The question is how. What is he going to do differently than he has before as it pertains to improving the defense?   Bargain shopping  and going predominantly offense in the early rounds of the draft has been the strategy thus far.

[justice98]

13 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Let's not forget the impact Galette will have next year.  From what I read reconstructed achilles are stronger than the original, little risk of another rupture and no loss of explosion.

They can not hang on that and count on him again, hoping 2 Achilles injuries are actually good for him.  Tearing both Achilles usually doesn't have somebody coming back good as new.  If for no other reason, the mental hurdle has to be enormous, just for one Achilles, let alone 2.

 

Galette is a bonus, not a building block, at this point.  And frankly, I never bought into the idea that Gallette was a defense changing, elite pass rusher even before the Achilles.  He had an element of speed and quickness our defense lacks, but whether that was going to translate to impact was up for debate.  People complained Orakpo wasn't an impact player, Gallette wasnt really significantly better.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Yes but Gallete was significantly better than what we had this year so cleary he would have been impactful..  Even yesterday in a blowout we saw our rushers simply locked in place, giving the QB way too much time.  And we've seen this for years.

[Darrell Green Fan]

25 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

The question is how. What is he going to do differently than he has before as it pertains to improving the defense?   Bargain shopping  and going predominantly offense in the early rounds of the draft has been the strategy thus far.

 

 Cravens, Smith, Murphy and Amerson represent 4 straight drafts with 2nd round picks spent on defense.  Then we have Fuller in the third,  Breeland and Philip Thomas in the 4th.  That is a fairly strong early round investment in the defense IMO.

[Skinsinparadise]

48 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

I totally agree this team is in good shape.  My comments about SM's free agency signings does not mean I'm not happy he is our guy, still fully on board that we have a real, proven GM in place.

 

However I have to point out that the vast majority of the players responsible for our turnaround were already on the team before SM's arrival:   Obviously  the biggest reason for the turnaround was the switch at QB, with pass protection being 2nd IMO.  With the exception of Scherff, who was the 5th pick in the draft, every player on the starting OL, as well as Kirk, were already on the team as were Reed, Pierre, Jackson, Murphy,,Compton and most all of the top players.  Giving SM full credit for our turnaround is a bit like crediting Casserly for the Super Bowl won with nealry all of the key players being acquired by Bethard.

 

But Crowder, Scherff and Norman were on his watch so like I said I'm still in full support.  Can't wait to see what he does with additional picks.

 

 

 

Agree about your optimism about the draft -- should be with 10 picks.  I think some of Scot's critics of his work in FA will be pleasantly surprised by this coming off season.

 

 Scot was hit and miss with free agency.  My only issue with that debate by some is the idea that other teams aren't also hit and miss with FA -- especially when they do bottom level shopping.  It's just how it typically works.     Even when the Redskins were active in FA, people cite guys like London Fletcher and Shawn Springs, etc.  Yeah those guys were marquee players.   When we went cheap-medium -- guys like Warrick Holdman, David Patten, Venron Fox, Pierson Priloeau, Kenny Wright, Jason Fabini. Keenan McCardell., Levi Jones, Artis Hicks -- the sea of FA safeties they signed and on and on and on and on.  We've bombed with so many low cost and medium cost FAs we can fill a book.   Other teams bomb with them, too and a lot. 

 

Perhaps I get the notion that if Scot is a wiz he should do better at FA than other GM's versus not distinguishing himself in FA-- if that's the point, I can see that.  Though Scot himself has never touted himself as a FA wiz, he said in interviews FA is tough for a variety of reasons among them its tough to evaluate a players motivations once they've already made it in the league.   Scot is a draft guy not a FA wiz.  It's tough for me to think of a GM who is a FA wiz or known for that.  Your odds of succeeding increase in FA when you do like the Giants did and shop at Tiffany's.  I suspect Scot will do some Tiffany's shopping this year and it will ultimately assuage his FA critics here.

 

 I think some people are sleeping on Cravens who arguably helped saved the season in the Giants game.  Cooley thinks he's a star in the making, future pro bowler.   Fuller has had some good games, too.   He's brought some players who have contributed such as Foster and Blackmon and RJF.   Doctson was considered by some draft geeks the best WR in this years draft -- will see if so hopefully one way or another next season.    If Scot can find Crowder in the 4th rounder, I am not doubting his first rounder. 

 

We used to cry about the lack of depth and resign ourselves to doom when our starters got hurt.  The fact that we could lose Long and throw in Sullivan.  We can lose Trent and not lose a beat by throwing in Ty.  We could lose Lauvao but throw in Ari.  No Jordan Reed but we got Vernon Davis.  All of this is big IMO.   In previous regimes, this team would fall off a cliff after injuries.

 

As for Kirk, yeah Shanny deserves credit for drafting him but Scot wasn't just dragged for that ride when it came to Kirk's succeeding here.  Scott is the guy who turned down trade offers for him in the off season.   Imagine if he took the Jets offer?   He's the guy that did a marathon session with Danny to convince him to let Kirk start.  Kirk himself credited Scot for this a few weeks ago in an interview.   I agree Shanny not Scot deserves credit for Kirk but Scot wasn't exactly a nonplayer in the Kirk story.

[Taylor703]

36 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

The question is how. What is he going to do differently than he has before as it pertains to improving the defense?   Bargain shopping  and going predominantly offense in the early rounds of the draft has been the strategy thus far.

He's had two drafts. He's gone defense in the first three rounds three times with Preston Smith, Sua Cravens and Kendall Fuller. This idea that he largely ignores the defense early in the draft simply isn't true. 

 

I honestly think the major issue is Doctson got hurt. Should he have been the pick? I don't know but it happens. Two of his picks from his first draft are headed to the Pro Bowl. Well Crowder is an alternate but even still that's pretty damn good. Preston Smith has really come on as of late and finding Robert Kelley was a godsend. 

 

He's set this team up to have the resources to fix this defense. $80M in cap space plus 9 draft choices is nothing to shake a stick at. Obviously he needs to actually fix the defense and something has to be done about Barry but Scot can do it. He has this team farther along in two seasons than the previous 20 before him. That's something to be excited about. 

[justice98]

27 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 Cravens, Smith, Murphy and Amerson represent 4 straight drafts with 2nd round picks spent on defense.  Then we have Fuller in the third,  Breeland and Philip Thomas in the 4th.  That is a fairly strong early round investment in the defense IMO.

When there's only 7 rounds, the 4th round can't be considered "early".  Even the 3rd is debateable.

 

But we're just talking about GMSM's strategy.  Some of those picks he wasn't even here for.  

11 minutes ago, Taylor703 said:

He has this team farther along in two seasons than the previous 20 before him. That's something to be excited about.

That's such a low bar that can be cleared just by not being incompetent.  I think people judge him through that prism too much.

[justice98]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 Scot was hit and miss with free agency.  My only issue with that debate by some is the idea that other teams aren't also hit and miss with FA -- especially when they do bottom level shopping.  It's just how it typically works.     Even when the Redskins were active in FA, people cite guys like London Fletcher and Shawn Springs, etc.  Yeah those guys were marquee players.   When we went cheap-medium -- guys like Warrick Holdman, David Patten, Venron Fox, Pierson Priloeau, Kenny Wright, Jason Fabini. Keenan McCardell., Levi Jones, Artis Hicks -- the sea of FA safeties they signed and on and on and on and on.  We've bombed with so many low cost and medium cost FAs we can fill a book.   Other teams bomb with them, too and a lot. 

 

You're also talking about any era where the worst GM in the league and a meddling owner were picking the players.  Neither one is the case now.

[Burgold]

9 minutes ago, justice98 said:

You're also talking about any era where the worst GM in the league and a meddling owner were picking the players.  Neither one is the case now.

On the other hand, based on NFL stats over his career we may be dealing with the worst DC in NFL history. Can you really gauge defensive talent accurately if that is the case. If Barry is really bad and players that leave here shine including guys that we thought were bums like Riley and Amerson... then maybe Scott has gathered much better talent than any of us realize.

[redskins59]

I honestly think that Bruce Allen would have done a solid job as the GM.  The one draft in 2014 was pretty good.  Trent Murphy, Spencer Long, Morgan Moses, as well as Bashaud Breeland and Ryan Grant (these two I am not very high on, but still they are part of the roster). And this was WITHOUT a first round pick.  Who's to say he wouldn't have done a solid job in 2015 and 2016?  With or without Scot McCloughan, we were trending in the right direction.  We had a terrible season in 2014, and Bruce was feeling the heat.  So he went and got himself Scot McCloughan.  Which I am fine with.  The more scouting types we have in our organization, the better.  So hiring McCloughan was a good move.  However, he is not some sort of savior.  The team was trending in the right direction, even before McCloughan got here.  To name a few players:

Kirk Cousins

Spencer Long

Morgan Moses

Ryan Kerrigan

Trent Williams

Desean Jackson and Pierre Garcon

 

All before Scot McCloughan got here.

 

We have failed to make the defensive side stronger.  Scot McCloughan hasn't helped there.  In all fairness, the defense has been a problem since Mike Shanahan.  This has to be the worst D I have ever seen (if not, at least one of the 5 worst).  Even rookies throw for 300 yards.  He got us Josh Norman, but everybody else is just potential. This includes Su'a Cravens.  

[Taylor703]

30 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

I honestly think that Bruce Allen would have done a solid job as the GM.  The one draft in 2014 was pretty good.  Trent Murphy, Spencer Long, Morgan Moses, as well as Bashaud Breeland and Ryan Grant (these two I am not very high on, but still they are part of the roster). And this was WITHOUT a first round pick.  Who's to say he wouldn't have done a solid job in 2015 and 2016?  With or without Scot McCloughan, we were trending in the right direction.  We had a terrible season in 2014, and Bruce was feeling the heat.  So he went and got himself Scot McCloughan.  Which I am fine with.  The more scouting types we have in our organization, the better.  So hiring McCloughan was a good move.  However, he is not some sort of savior.  The team was trending in the right direction, even before McCloughan got here.  To name a few players:

Kirk Cousins

Spencer Long

Morgan Moses

Ryan Kerrigan

Trent Williams

Desean Jackson and Pierre Garcon

 

All before Scot McCloughan got here.

 

We have failed to make the defensive side stronger.  Scot McCloughan hasn't helped there.  In all fairness, the defense has been a problem since Mike Shanahan.  This has to be the worst D I have ever seen (if not, at least one of the 5 worst).  Even rookies throw for 300 yards.  He got us Josh Norman, but everybody else is just potential. This includes Su'a Cravens.  

The team was far from trending in the right direction. We'd won 7 games in two years and had absolutely nothing to show from Shanahans last draft. Nearly every free agent Allen brought in was a complete disaster and the only thing saving it is Lauvao, who shouldn't even be starting anymore. 

 

 

1 hour ago, justice98 said:

When there's only 7 rounds, the 4th round can't be considered "early".  Even the 3rd is debateable.

 

But we're just talking about GMSM's strategy.  Some of those picks he wasn't even here for.  

That's such a low bar that can be cleared just by not being incompetent.  I think people judge him through that prism too much.

It was such a low bar but it still hadn't been done in 20 years. If fans want to act like its some sort of coincidence that we've suddenly had back to back winning seasons after hiring Scot than so be it. As a fan, to me at least, he's been a godsend. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, justice98 said:

You're also talking about any era where the worst GM in the league and a meddling owner were picking the players.  Neither one is the case now.

 

I hear you but like I said in that same point, its the same case for all teams.  Did the Giants rise because of their low cost FAs or even medium level ones?

 

Lets take the Giants who are now considered the FA kings.  And I'll work their last 3 years.  They gave 4 million plus to Geoff Schwartz.  Almost 3 million to the center JD Walton. Quintin Demps.  Walter Thurmund.  John Jerry. Zack Bowman.  Charles Brown. Kellen Davis. Josh Freeman, Marshall Newhouse, JT Thomas (3 million plus for him). Jonathan Casillas, Kenrick Ellis, George Selvie, Jeromy Miles, James Jones, our old pal Brandon Meriweather, Ashlee Palmer, Stevie Brown, Craig Dahl, Jasper Brinkley, Louis Nix, Keenan Robinson, Will Johnson, Ryan Seymour, Kelvin Sheppard, Bobby Rainey, Bryon Stingily, Leon Hall.  These guys have really lit the world on fire? No, most of these guys bombed.

 

Who succeeded?  Big contract to DRC.   Shane Vareen I guess has been all right but he's injury prone.  Ayers was good but he's gone.   Big contract to Jenkins.  Big contract to snacks.  Big contract to Vernon.  Harris is a good special teams player.

 

But that's a lot of guys who have failed or are just guys -- more failures than successes.  And that's not because the Giants stink at FA, its because like I said its how it works.  I am surprised that some haven't observed the same thing -- becuase i am not embarking on a wild theory here, its practically a cliche.  Maybe its just more fun to remember the hits than misses coupled with FA signings all seem fun in the moment -- hey maybe OJ Atowge has something left or yeah maybe even though K. Reyes has 2 bad years in a row but he will rediscover his play from 3 years ago.  Or in the Giants case maybe Louis Nix will be a good run stuffer for them, hey he was a 3rd round pick and considered one of the better NTs in the draft.  Hey if Walter Thurmund can regain his form from Seattle, wow -- we will give him 3.5 million and see what happens.

 

IMO this whole conversation is a great example of why the draft is so important.  Chasing guys where their teams are ok with allowing them to hit FA and move on from them -- is arguably as much as a crap shoot as the draft but with much more to lose because of you get it wrong you have much more serious cap implications.  

 

Just like Jerry Reese, Scot is going to look a lot smarter in FA in all likelihood shopping for the marquee players versus going on leap of faith signings.

 

 

•  

[Warhead36]

52 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

I honestly think that Bruce Allen would have done a solid job as the GM.  The one draft in 2014 was pretty good.  Trent Murphy, Spencer Long, Morgan Moses, as well as Bashaud Breeland and Ryan Grant (these two I am not very high on, but still they are part of the roster). And this was WITHOUT a first round pick.  Who's to say he wouldn't have done a solid job in 2015 and 2016?  With or without Scot McCloughan, we were trending in the right direction.  We had a terrible season in 2014, and Bruce was feeling the heat.  So he went and got himself Scot McCloughan.  Which I am fine with.  The more scouting types we have in our organization, the better.  So hiring McCloughan was a good move.  However, he is not some sort of savior.  The team was trending in the right direction, even before McCloughan got here.  To name a few players:

Kirk Cousins

Spencer Long

Morgan Moses

Ryan Kerrigan

Trent Williams

Desean Jackson and Pierre Garcon

 

All before Scot McCloughan got here.

 

We have failed to make the defensive side stronger.  Scot McCloughan hasn't helped there.  In all fairness, the defense has been a problem since Mike Shanahan.  This has to be the worst D I have ever seen (if not, at least one of the 5 worst).  Even rookies throw for 300 yards.  He got us Josh Norman, but everybody else is just potential. This includes Su'a Cravens.  

IIRC we used McLoughan's scouting service for our 2014 draft. He in essence drafted that class or at least his scouting laid the groundwork for who we did take.

[redskins59]

Just now, Warhead36 said:

IIRC we used McLoughan's scouting service for our 2014 draft. He in essence drafted that class or at least his scouting laid the groundwork for who we did take.

 

So, you mean to tell me that all the scouting that Scott Campbell and crew did that year was all useless?  They threw that all away and essentially went with SM's draft board? SM is so good that he is better than all our scouts combined?  C'mon man. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, redskins59 said:

I honestly think that Bruce Allen would have done a solid job as the GM.  The one draft in 2014 was pretty good.  Trent Murphy, Spencer Long, Morgan Moses, as well as Bashaud Breeland and Ryan Grant (these two I am not very high on, but still they are part of the roster). And this was WITHOUT a first round pick.  

 

For some reason Scot being a consultant to the team in 2014 doesn't gain any traction on this thread.  The Redskins hire Scot to provide recommendations for the 2014 draft.  Bruce Allen said those recommendations were very good and implied its part of the reason why Scot was hired -- somehow this all adds up to be meaningless.  Bruce who by his own admission isn't a scout, he's a money guy (and he's had multiple bad drafts that he was in charge of in Tampa) -- hired a scout he trusts, publicly said the recommendations were very good, and later hires the person full-time who made those recommendations to him --  but somehow this adds up to Scot probably had nothing to do with the picks and it was all Bruce. 

 

I am a consultant by profession.  If my client is successful, I actually add that client to my resume.  When I am pitching future clients, they actually consider my clients as people who listened to my recommendations.  But this case takes it to a further extreme.  I am the consultant, I give recommendations.  That client does the best he's ever done.  That client tells the world in a press conference my recommendations were very good and then hires me to work for them full-time.  To digest all of that and then conclude well I doubt that consultant had anything to do with the success of the client -- seems with all respect very illogical.  

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

So, you mean to tell me that all the scouting that Scott Campbell and crew did that year was all useless?  They threw that all away and essentially went with SM's draft board? SM is so good that he is better than all our scouts combined?  C'mon man. 

 

Scott Campbell has been here for a long time and if that draft's success is mostly on him, then its the best draft he's ever been a part of IMO.   I read it was actually up to Scot whether Campbell was even kept or not when he arrived.   Bruce probably just threw some dough at Scot to consult because he felt sorry for him, he didn't really need his advice and or they got his advice but didn't take it that seriously?   If Bruce trusts Scott Campbell so much why hire a consultant?   We should know more than most teams, when a team hires a consultant it usually connotes a problem that needs to be fixed as opposed to things are just coasting fine and everything is great.

 

If it was Campbell that nailed the 2014 draft and not Scot.    Why not just appoint Scot Campbell to be the next GM and publicly applaud his recommendations from the draft versus hiring Scot and applauding his recommendations?

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Taylor703 said:

 

He's set this team up to have the resources to fix this defense. $80M in cap space plus 9 draft choices is nothing to shake a stick at. Obviously he needs to actually fix the defense and something has to be done about Barry but Scot can do it. He has this team farther along in two seasons than the previous 20 before him. That's something to be excited about. 

 

I used to think its 9 picks, too.  But I got from the horses mouth its 10 picks.  He told me the 5th for Carrier was traded for a 7th -- with a clause tied to playing time so unless Carrier exceeded the playing time parameters this season, we would have 10 picks.

 

Edit:  sorry for the multiple posts back to back, thought this point would link in with my prior one.

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The entitled to your own opinion, not the facts line really applies to your argument not mine IMO.  I am not the one mixing up the facts.  As you say you know nothing about Doctson but have defined the pick anyway and now calling him a bust.  There was no undrafted receiver on the Giants with more catches than Crowder. OK, you were confused about Cruz and Shepard.  Even if you take Shepard, he doesn't have more catches either (and is about 200 yards behind Crowder) and Shepard played this Thursday so he had that extra chance.   Don't recall any NFL pundits laughing at the Scherff pick.  NFL pundits don't characterize a draft pick who didn't play in year 1 as a bust.      

 

As for Scherff actually your own post IMO shoots down your point, ironically.  If you follow the draft a guy who is rated at #8 in a poll and is taken #5  -- that isn't considered by most draft geeks to be a discrepancy.  That's pretty normal.  McShay in his last mock had Doctson in the top 10 by the way -- we took him 22.  The draft geeks aren't always right -- if they were they'd be GMs around the league.  But even if we play with Kiper, Mayock or whomever nailing it like a bulls eye every time.  In their language #5 or #8 is basically the same thing since its in the same range -- where guys like Kiper (who loved Scot's draft including the Scherff pick) think picks are reaches are generally where you got a major difference not a tiny minor one, for example Kiper thought Bruce Irvin was a early 2nd rounder and criticized Seattle for taking him in the mid first round.  

 

Your point seems to be:  look whether this guy or that guy will be good next year isn't relevant to the bottom line.  The bottom line is they lost and you are upset.  And you are upset that in your mind the Giants and Cowboys rebuilding projects are moving faster than ours.   I follow the point.  Though some of the arguments you used to back it IMO are off.   But if you look at the moving parts going on with the team, IMO its very easy to see we aren't that far behind either team and we have a good shot to catch up or even surpass this off season.  We beat the Giants and we were a hair away from beating Dallas both times.  The defense sucks.  Our offense is very good and a mile better than the Giants offense.  I don't think its going to be incredibly hard to make this bad defense average in one off season.  The Giants just did the same thing.     

Oh if a a few NFL geeks say the Sherff pick is fine then it must be true! I submit. I MUST BE WRONG. A few NFL geeks? Almost as bad as I have family and friends living there and they read the papers. At least you admit you are mixing up facts.  I will try it again and mabe the third time I state it it will sink in.THE OP ASKED FOR OUR ASSESSMENT OF OUR GM. I stated he should be retained but I am not crazy about some of his picks. I stated Shepard had more catches than Crowder and they are close. 65 Crowder and 62 Shep but Shep has more TD and he is a rook. I really did not want to compare Shep to Crowder, I wanted to state that while our GM was taking Dotson WITH A #1 the Giants got a better receiver with a #2. I never said Dotson was a reach. I said he is, AS OF NOW, a bust. What do you call a guy who is taken #1 and does not play? Ask the NFL GEEKS. I used the FACTS while stating in the last 15 years no team has taken a guard, that was supposed to be a tackle, but could not hack it, in the top 5. THAT IS A FACT and my proof he is a reach. No more time. Merry Christmas.

[Commander -JB-]

1 hour ago, redskins59 said:

I honestly think that Bruce Allen would have done a solid job as the GM.  The one draft in 2014 was pretty good.  Trent Murphy, Spencer Long, Morgan Moses, as well as Bashaud Breeland and Ryan Grant (these two I am not very high on, but still they are part of the roster). And this was WITHOUT a first round pick.  Who's to say he wouldn't have done a solid job in 2015 and 2016?  With or without Scot McCloughan, we were trending in the right direction.  We had a terrible season in 2014, and Bruce was feeling the heat.  So he went and got himself Scot McCloughan.  Which I am fine with.  The more scouting types we have in our organization, the better.  So hiring McCloughan was a good move.  However, he is not some sort of savior.  The team was trending in the right direction, even before McCloughan got here.  To name a few players:

Kirk Cousins

Spencer Long

Morgan Moses

Ryan Kerrigan

Trent Williams

Desean Jackson and Pierre Garcon

 

All before Scot McCloughan got here.

 

We have failed to make the defensive side stronger.  Scot McCloughan hasn't helped there.  In all fairness, the defense has been a problem since Mike Shanahan.  This has to be the worst D I have ever seen (if not, at least one of the 5 worst).  Even rookies throw for 300 yards.  He got us Josh Norman, but everybody else is just potential. This includes Su'a Cravens.  

Bruce Allen would have been a good GM?  He essentially was our GM when we won 7 games combined over two seasons.  What in the world are you talking about?  He absolutely would make a terrible GM, his hand was forced, either find a GM or pack your bags.  It's that simple.  McCloughan deserves a lot of credit.

[Wildbunny]

23 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

stating in the last 15 years no team has taken a guard, that was supposed to be a tackle, but could not hack it, in the top 5. THAT IS A FACT and my proof he is a reach

Where did you know that he couldn't hack it at Tackle? We switched it there because he was better there than what we had at the position and Moses was getting the job done.

Which is like some of our guys asking to move Trent Williams to Guard and play NSehke at LT.

And the fact that no teams have gotten a guard at position X for many years doesn't prove it's a reach. Position doesn't matter, it's the player you're getting hat matter. See Ray Guy. A reach btw is getting a player you could have gotten in a later round. There was no way Scherff was going past 10 at all, so that's not a reach by any means.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

Oh if a a few NFL geeks say the Sherff pick is fine then it must be true! I submit. I MUST BE WRONG. A few NFL geeks? Almost as bad as I have family and friends living there and they read the papers. At least you admit you are mixing up facts.  I will try it again and mabe the third time I state it it will sink in.THE OP ASKED FOR OUR ASSESSMENT OF OUR GM. I stated he should be retained but I am not crazy about some of his picks. I stated Shepard had more catches than Crowder and they are close. 65 Crowder and 62 Shep but Shep has more TD and he is a rook. I really did not want to compare Shep to Crowder, I wanted to state that while our GM was taking Dotson WITH A #1 the Giants got a better receiver with a #2. I never said Dotson was a reach. I said he is, AS OF NOW, a bust. What do you call a guy who is taken #1 and does not play? Ask the NFL GEEKS. I used the FACTS while stating in the last 15 years no team has taken a guard, that was supposed to be a tackle, but could not hack it, in the top 5. THAT IS A FACT and my proof he is a reach. No more time. Merry Christmas.

 

I said you were mixing up the facts, not me and I gave examples of it.   You didn't start by this being a Shepard versus Crowder debate -- you were corrected into that point by me.  I just reread your post again (page 8 if you are curious) you said the Giants have an undrafted WR with more catches than Crowder and who's to say we couldn't have gotten Crowder later in the draft as you suggested.   You point was clearly heck even the Crowder pick was questionable and the Giants did better with a WR who is doing better this year who was an undrafted free agent.  I showed you the point isn't true.  

 

OK that doesn't work out for you, then your shift over to Shepard.   I showed that even with that Crowder's numbers are better.   And comparing the Giants high 2nd rounder to the Redskins low 4th rounder -- doesn't that support my debate not yours?  I gather that hit you now.  So that doesn't work out for you either so lets move away from that debate, too. Even though Crowder is the player you debated and launched your point off of in comparison to a phantom undrafted FA.  But now its you didn't really mean either point.  What you really meant in that post is a tit for tat comparison between Doctson and Shepard.  Talk about pretzel logic and moving the goal posts. 

 

You used the fact that you saw a poll that rated Scherff #8 as if that's an indictment since Scot took him at #5.  I responded that if you follow the mocks (and I do religiously, check out the draft thread one day) your generalization of ANY player being a bad pick because its 3 picks off of a poll is silly.  And I explained why.  I don't feel like reexplaining this.

 

It's clear to me that you don't follow the draft that closely.  You admitted you knew nothing about Doctson.  By this debate, its clear to me that you don't follow the Giants that closely.    And you seem to have a lot of angst directed at the direction the team is headed -- even though they've had two winning seasons in a row for the first time in 20 years.  You can say what you want to me from here on -- but on my end I am done debating this with you.  Good luck with your points.  And thanks for engaging -- no vitriol meant from me but I think our debate is just a waste of each other's time.  

[SkinsPassion4Life]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I used to think its 9 picks, too.  But I got from the horses mouth its 10 picks.  He told me the 5th for Carrier was traded for a 7th -- with a clause tied to playing time so unless Carrier exceeded the playing time parameters this season, we would have 10 picks.

 

Edit:  sorry for the multiple posts back to back, thought this point would link in with my prior one.

 

I read the same thing on a 49ers board a while back...apparently we get back a 7th round pick from the 49ers because Carrier did not play 40% of the snaps.