The McGlouaeiouandsometimesygghhggain Kool-Aid - No thanks. I'll stick to coffee.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 minutes ago, bh32 said:

What about Dallas?how many 2nd round picks have they pissed into the wind?,but it dosent effect them..sometime you have to take the chance on high risk high reward players and not just his definition of football players that have no talent..What happened to his saying you will  know when you play the Redskins because they will out physical you?

 

We have three 1st rounders who should be on the team, but aren't. One drafted, the other two never were. Check to see how many 1st rounders the Cowboys still have on the team from 2012-2014:

 

Claiborne (still on team)

Frederick (still on team - Pro Bowler)

Martin (still on team - Pro Bowler)

 

That's one reason their screwed-up 2nd round picks don't effect them.

[Tsailand]

2 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

I think most people knew the RG3 trade would set us back if it didn't work and we are now seeing the effects.

 

Most people were giddy over the RG3 trade, spouting cliches like "if you see you chance at a franchise QB you have to take it".  Go back and read those threads from 2012.

[Rufus T Firefly]

15 minutes ago, CBass1724 said:

Well 30 other teams whiffed on that move getting Norman, so there is definitely credit due here. I don't disagree that he's missed on some things. 

30 other teams didn't have the cap space and the need for Norman. And he came here largely because we were a playoff team.

 

But you're not great GM because you can hand out one of the largest contracts for a player at his position and have him be good. Even if that were some kind of skill that only great GMs had, they are only going to be able to do it a couple of times.

 

And praising GMs for being able to hit on a huge contract or the #5 pick is like choosing a mechanic because he knows where the oil goes.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

Most people were giddy over the RG3 trade, spouting cliches like "if you see you chance at a franchise QB you have to take it".  Go back and read those threads from 2012.

 

That logic is still incredibly sound. You just have to absolutely know the QB will indeed be a bonafide franchise QB.

 

Put another way, would Tom Brady have been worth those picks? Peyton Manning? Especially on the new rookie slotted salaries?

[zoony]

9 minutes ago, Springfield said:

We aren't perfect, but we are trending the right direction.  

 

Because of our GM?  Because i would argue yhat its Cousins

[bh32]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

We have three 1st rounders who should be on the team, but aren't. One drafted, the other two never were. Check to see how many 1st rounders the Cowboys still have on the team from 2012-2014:

 

Claiborne (still on team)

Frederick (still on team - Pro Bowler)

Martin (still on team - Pro Bowler)

 

That's one reason their screwed-up 2nd round picks don't effect them.

Claiborne sucks and hasn't played due to being hurt for like a month..The whole defense is full of a bunch of jags except for Lee

[DC9]

6 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

You're welcome but you knew me already jackass! 

 

BTW, I'm majorly conflicted on Cousins. The very last thing I want to do is start over with a new QB. And he's had a terrific year in a lot of regards. But he just can't win when the chips are down. He just can't. So where do you go with him? Ink a good NFL QB but one who won't ever put the team on his back under the real spotlight and take you over the edge? Or move on and waste another couple of seasons developing or integrating another? What the GM does with him will have a HUGE bearing on how he's remembered in DC. 

 

Hail. 

 

Said in the game day, you can win a super bowl with him - but he's "a piece," and not "THE piece."

 

If he shows up demanding 25 plus, tag him and take the picks from Houston.  If he's willing to take 18-21 mil, we can talk.

 

His stock fell greatly for me, today, too.

[redskins59]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I'm talking about drafts, especially Shanahan's 4 drafts (which I think someone earlier said were better than Scot M's drafts). Still, that's 5 good players drafted in 5 years on your list, and 7 good players altogether in 5 years. How many good players would currently be on Scot M's list of 2 years?

 

I count two for now:  Scherff, and Crowder (who knows how good Josh Norman is?  The D is just terrible).  His 2016 draft could end up having 0 good players.  What if his 2017 draft is terrible as well?  That is why you can't make projections.  Are you going to count the three (Scherff, Crowder and Norman) and then multiply that by 5 to come with a projected number of 15?

The bottomline is that the majority of our players on O (the D is terrible this year under McCloughan as well) are Shanny/Allen players. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, bh32 said:

Claiborne sucks and hasn't played due to being hurt for like a month..The whole defense is full of a bunch of jags except for Lee

 

Claiborne has been incredibly good this season and a lot of last season. You're living in 2013.

[Gibbit]

9 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

Most people were giddy over the RG3 trade, spouting cliches like "if you see you chance at a franchise QB you have to take it".  Go back and read those threads from 2012.

you are judged on your draft decisions years after the fact. you know this

 

people seemed excited about leribeus in that draft haha 

[bh32]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Claiborne has been incredibly good this season and a lot of last season. You're living in 2013.

He hasn't played in over a month..The excuses are getting old

[s0crates]

We've gone from consistently bad to consistently average during SM's time, which is an improvement. Those who like him can hang their hat on that, but I think the OP makes a good point that the biggest contributors to this step in the right direction have almost all been Shanahan's guys, and it is just as likely that the change to Cousins account for our improvement as it is that SM or anybody else does. 

[skins4eva]

Love when Zoony gets salty!!!

[dyst]

He changed the culture so I'll give him credit for that. Find two legit playmakers in your draft is what needs to happen so drafting Sherrif and Crowder is what a normal GM should do. He's the best GM we've had in decades even if he hasn't done exceptional. Not sure if that speaks volumes to his ability or the fact that we've sucked for so long.

[Alaskins]

I don't think that you can bash Scot for Doctson being hurt.

 

Agree that we didn't spend JACK addressing the D.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

I count two for now:  Scherff, and Crowder (who knows how good Josh Norman is?  The D is just terrible).  His 2016 draft could end up having 0 good players.  What if his 2017 draft is terrible as well?  That is why you can't make projections.  Are you going to count the three (Scherff, Crowder and Norman) and then multiply that by 5 to come with a projected number of 15?

The bottomline is that the majority of our players on O (the D is terrible this year under McCloughan as well) are Shanny/Allen players. 

 

1) It's EASY to know how good Norman is, regardless of how good/terrible the defense is overall.

 

2) The 2016 "could" end up with no good players...well, it "could" end up with two Pro-Bowl starters as well. We should probably leave "could" out of the equation.

 

3) I'm not extrapolating as much as I'm pointing out the flawed logic and reasoning of anyone thinking Shanahan had better drafts than Scot M has had so far in an effort to criticize McGloughan.

 

4) The "majority" of players on O...well, no **** lol...Shanny and Allen had FIVE YEARS to put players on the roster. Scot has had 2 so far. What really matters (or matters just as much) is the quality of depth players and the overall plan and direction of the franchise. Both were severely lacking with Shanahan/Allen.

[Taylor703]

Sigh. He's been here two years and we've improved. We all knew this would take years but here we are again. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 minutes ago, bh32 said:

He hasn't played in over a month..The excuses are getting old

 

What excuses? lol...It's a FACT that Claiborne does NOT "suck" as you claimed. Not anymore. Missing a month due to injury doesn't negate that fact, because a lot of HOF players have missed more time than that during various seasons.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

13 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

You're welcome but you knew me already jackass! 

 

BTW, I'm majorly conflicted on Cousins. The very last thing I want to do is start over with a new QB. And he's had a terrific year in a lot of regards. But he just can't win when the chips are down. He just can't. So where do you go with him? Ink a good NFL QB but one who won't ever put the team on his back under the real spotlight and take you over the edge? Or move on and waste another couple of seasons developing or integrating another? What the GM does with him will have a HUGE bearing on how he's remembered in DC. 

 

Hail. 

Don't think that is fair with Kirk. He has had many 4th quarter comebacks to win games. Some were blown by the D though. Without a running game good enough to make a defense at least think you could run successfully in a given situation, the whole thing is on him and the D can successfully defend a completely one dimensional offense. He can only be so successful like that. They have to fix the run game and D. If Kirk then can't do it, as you say, just can't, then maybe its a fair assessment.

[HTTRDynasty]

The argument that McCloughan hasn't done well because most of the guys currently contributing to our success are Shanahan guys is a terrible argument.  Maybe that's because they've actually had time to develop?  How quick were most willing to write Moses off?  How about Long?  Hell, even Cousins?  How about we give Doctson, Cravens, and Fuller more than one season before writing them off.  And give the 2015 picks the 3 years that it usually takes to develop in this league.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

4 minutes ago, Alaskins said:

I don't think that you can bash Scot for Doctson being hurt.

 

.....

 

You can however seriously question the pick that high, both on the player and the position, which those of us that did were shouted down at the time. 

 

If that had been a Cerrato pick people would of been apoplectic with rage. 

 

Hail. 

[redskins59]

7 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

1) It's EASY to know how good Norman is, regardless of how good/terrible the defense is overall.

 

2) The 2016 "could" end up with no good players...well, it "could" end up with two Pro-Bowl starters as well. We should probably leave "could" out of the equation.

 

3) I'm not extrapolating as much as I'm pointing out the flawed logic and reasoning of anyone thinking Shanahan had better drafts than Scot M has had so far in an effort to criticize McGloughan.

 

4) The "majority" of players on O...well, no **** lol...Shanny and Allen had FIVE YEARS to put players on the roster. Scot has had 2 so far. What really matters (or matters just as much) is the quality of depth players and the overall plan and direction of the franchise. Both were severely lacking with Shanahan/Allen.

 

Scout McCloughan has been good, but can you tell me that Allen wouldn't have been better?  Look at the 2014 draft.  The defense has been terrible, and the offense has been excellent.  And the reason that the O is successful has very little  to do with Scot McCloughan.  The solid players are mainly from Shanahan and Allen.  Look at the defense as well (which I hate to do because it is hard to judge who is good and who isn't when they suck so bad):

1. Ryan Kerrigan

2.  Chris Baker

3.  Trent Murphy (who is always grading well on PFF)

4. Bashaud Breeland ( he regressed this year, but he is a good starter).

 

Who else besides Norman (if I give you that) can be argued is good on the D?  And whose fault is that?

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

You can however seriously question the pick that high, both on the player and the position, which those of us that did were shouted down at the time. 

 

If that had been a Cerrato pick people would of been apoplectic with rage. 

 

Hail. 

 

Would it really have mattered, though, if we picked a free safety or defensive lineman, and HE was on IR for damn near the entire season?...I somehow doubt anyone would be giving Scot M a good grade for the 1st round pick in that situation lol...

[Taylor703]

4 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

You can however seriously question the pick that high, both on the player and the position, which those of us that did were shouted down at the time. 

 

If that had been a Cerrato pick people would of been apoplectic with rage. 

 

Hail. 

Doctson was worth that pick. He was widely considered the best receiver in the draft. The injury obviously was unexpected but it happens. 

[Springfield]

10 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Because of our GM?  Because i would argue yhat its Cousins

 

It could be Cousins that has us trending right.  He has a large part in our offensive success, that's for sure.  Cousins play is a subject that is another tangent though, and ultimately, McCloughan is responsible for the overall success as a team.  He is responsible for the god awful defense as well, which is why I'm willing to give him more time.  Not that I believe that he can turn it around, but I'd rather see him try than hand it over to someone else and start over again.

 

Since the team is trending the right way, which you seem to agree, I'm comfortable with leaving things mostly status quo and allowing the man at the top to continue team building.