jbooma Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Originally posted by Art "Our owner, Dan Snyder, when the choice became available, he said, 'Gosh, we were thinking about drafting him with the 13th pick, and now we've got a chance to go get him with the 44th. We've got to do it.' Now what did other teams have him rated? He was what the 3rd or 4th WR taken in the draft? So we had him #1 before everyone else, hmmm now that is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 6, 2004 Author Share Posted January 6, 2004 JB, Jacobs was generally seen as worthy of a pick between 18-25 in the first round. No. 13 would have been early for him by almost all accounts. But, we were DETERMINED to get better at receiver and might have done that. Everyone had him as the third best receiver in the draft. He may have gone fifth though as some teams may have targeted someone with better size or better speed or, simply who didn't have the Florida taint at receiver. We didn't have him No. 1 before anyone else. We loved Rogers. We loved Johnson. Just like everyone. You may recall there were many rumors of us moving up to make a play for one of those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Now what did other teams have him rated? He was what the 3rd or 4th WR taken in the draft? So we had him #1 before everyone else, hmmm now that is interesting. No -- we had him at 3. Like most teams did. Except the Cardinals who picked the Penn State guy over him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 If we actually DO hire Rhodes, it'll be an indication to me that Snyder actually enjoys and revels in the constant turnover that we endure. Rhodes won't last long if he is hired. Here's a wild theory: Maybe Snyder actually wants to hire Rhodes as an "interim" solution, kind of like he did with Marty to get to Spurrier. Maybe someone he really likes is planning on becoming available in a year or two. But if so, hopefully that mystery person out there is a better choice than Spurrier was. If my theory is correct, then we'll be held hostage at least through the Ray Rhodes era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Originally posted by Even Madder Jacobs was neither the best player available nor was he a "need" pick. He was a bad pick. You're siding with Spurrier, not with the FO. Regardless of whether Cerrato or Spurrier was promoting him, Snyder made the final choice. Snyder is certainly is member of the FO, I would think. The point is moot. Literally. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Originally posted by Larry Brown #43 Here's a wild theory: Maybe Snyder actually wants to hire Rhodes as an "interim" solution, kind of like he did with Marty to get to Spurrier. Now that's an interesting idea. Snyder is playing the meta-game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Originally posted by Art I defend them when they deserve defending. When morons claim Taylor Jacobs was a bad pick, I'm bound to attempt to raise just how ignorant and baseless that is, and just how sound the reasoning and pick of Jacobs was, whether he ever does anything in the pros or not. Mostly people define a good pick as a player who becomes successful in the NFL, maybe you define a good draft pick as just how much hype the player had prior to being drafted. Doesn't make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevea Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Originally posted by Art ... The second was that I think most fans of the team do not appreciate Rhodes' merits as to being interviewed at all. It was in response to the form response he had saying no decisions were made. I essentially just wrote that while we're glad there are no decisions made, part of the problem is it's hard for most fans to comprehend the merits of even bothering to do the interview. His response was a simple: "i believe you are correct when you say "most fans don't appreciate why the team would interview Rhodes." This response tells me several things. That a NUMBER of fans have sent messages against Rhodes. That he is seeing them. And, that despite the letters, the fans aren't the ones who are going to make this decision because by in large they don't appreciate what qualifications Rhodes does have. That the team does view him as a qualified candidate under whatever set of criteria it has decided to employ. I think we kind of know and knew he is a candidate with a legitimate chance at the job here. I think we know now the team will decide this regardless of fan input which, again, may be a good thing or it may be a very bad one. I can't decide. Art, Your interpretation of Swanson's reply is a reasonable one, but not the only reasonable one. I read his reply and am surprised that he is acknowledgeing that many, many fans have sent messages criticisizing the Rhodes interview, AND THAT THE REDSKINS FRONT OFFICE HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE STRONG FAN RESPONSE. That might mean that the FO will ignore fan input (as they should to a large extent), OR that such a large fan input has caused them to take note and they will quietly reevaluate their original excitement about Rhodes. If the latter, they sure as heck wouldn't say anything public or cancel the interview. They would say to you just what they did and then interview and decide against Rhodes. HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.