opening an old wound

[fansince62]

ok...gardner may have a great upside (even tho he fluffed a sure touchdown last night). i still maintain that from an overall team pov, the skins screwed up royally by not drafting hutchinson. put aside economics (tieing up too much money in the line), you always build your lines first. i still view this decision as the one that will have long-lasting ramifications for this team.

[Mickalino]

First of all, I'll be nit-picky and say that Gardner's ball wasn't a sure TD. Even if he caught the ball, most likely he would have been downed at about the 3, where he landed with the ball (or part of the ball, as fate had it). The ball was slightly over thrown, forcing him to break stride and dive for it, thereby forcing him into the dirt at the 3 with a couple defenders on top of him.

As far as the draft choice, the fact is, that we needed BOTH a WR and Guard. We couldnt get both. And no matter which one we picked, neither one would be our saviour, or even make a difference between the sub-par team we have been, and being a serious playoff team. Either way we picked, I think we'd be re-building this year, and have to wait until at least next year, to fit the other pieces of the puzzle in before we make a serious run.

[ by Mick on August 18, 2001.]

[Brave]

Hutch was a blue-chipper and our guard spots have been less than stellar, so in that sense your argument is not invalid. However, had we picked Hutch, we would have been left with our #1 WR coming off an ACL injury, an aquired #3 guy and a bunch of potential. So, in that case, you could have made the same argument the other way.

It was a pretty good effort at a well-thrown but tough to catch pass. I'll bet Gardner makes that one next time.

[TennesseeCarl]

I think the team was keeping an eye on the FA market at the time of the draft and there just weren't any decent WRs. Shortly after, they signed Campbell and Coleman. It still may work out well.

While I do agree that you 'build from the lines out', we just had no WRs (and I think we're in pretty fair shape right now) and CB was getting problematic (and Smoot w/ Bailey may mean our CB needs are met for a decade).

From all accounts, Hutch is going well with Seattle. I wish we had him, but I'm hopeful that Gardner will be around for a while for us.

If we end up with a quality WR in Gardner, a starting CB in Smoot, a decent QB prospect in Rosenfels and a 3-4 WR in McCants, I'll be very pleased with the past draft.

[NavyDave]

Yeah I was a draft Hutch dude too back in April but there was just a big a need for receiver then.

Mookie or whoever may just shape up just before the opening game.

------------------

Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe

[kleese]

Don't forget, taking Hutch would also mean no Smoot. No way we would have passed on a WR in the 2nd round had we taken a guard in the first. We would have selected the best WR avaialble at the time-- especially seeing we didn't have a third rounder.

The question becomes, would you rather have Gardner and Smoot or Hutch and a 2nd round WR? I'll take the first option.

[shamaran]

I was a HUTcH guy too.

In retrospect, Hutch and Chambers would have been a KO.

[Art]

I was a huge Hutch guy, and still rue not taking him, but I don't necessarily agree with Kleese that had we taken him we wouldn't have taken Smoot. If Smoot was available when we picked, we still would have taken Smoot. It was just too great a value sitting there in round 2. I think Gardner is a fine pickup and it's hard to argue with it, but, my preference was Hutch all along, given where we were and that we couldn't get Vick .

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[bulldog]

you have to look at the draft strategically and project your players and new picks beyond just the 2001 season.

Remember that Westbrook, 29, is coming off an ACL injury and is a free agent at the end of this season.

There is still a question as to whether Jeff George will be here long-term based on his ability to run this new offense effectively.

Going into the draft only Davis was a sure bet to contribute here for 2001 and into the future.

Taking Hutchinson and Smoot in the draft this year could have worked out for this season.

But it would have left the team next year with perhaps having to acquire a #1 quarterback and #1 receiver at the same time.

That would have been a tall order to fill and something that could have set the offense back a season or two if capable candidates were not found right away.

Guard is a position where teams DO find players in the middle and later rounds and in free agency that can come in and contribute.

You see a lot more late picks and free agents that becomes pro bowlers at guard than you do at wide receiver, quarterback or cornerback these days.

Most of the franchise players at these skill positions around the NFL are #1 draft choices.

I don't think Marty made a mistake by passing on Hutchinson considering the money invested in Samuels and the possible need to rework Jansen's deal after this season. There is only so much money you can place in one unit on your team.

Gardner in my opinion will be a fine player and gives us som flexibility in case Westbrook has a good season and the team is faced with a difficult negotiation.

Where you may fault the Redskins is in overrating the 2001 potential of Moore and Fletcher at guard. Campbell HAS played well, especially against Atlanta, so you can't say the interior line has stunk across the board.

Where the trouble really lies I fear is in the knee injury to Ben Coleman. Coleman was signed for $1 million in the offseason and it was NOT to be a backup to Moore or Fletcher. At 6'5 and 325 he is also quick enough to get outside and block on the screens and pitches that Fletcher was unable to do on Friday.

But he is hurt. Once again, the injury bug hits where the team has little left in reserve to compensate except green youngsters.

This team went into preseason thinking they could compete if they didn't have injuries at several spots among them QB, DE and G where the starters were projected to be older veterans.

And THOSE are EXACTLY the spots where the more serious injuries have hit the team.

It was a gamble. But everything can't be fixed in one offseason.

If the Redskins had taken Hutchinson and not Gardner and then Westbrook and Lockett had gotten hurt in camp, people would be complaining that Marty should have shored up a position where the best player, Westbrook, was injured virtually every season.

[The Dark Horse]

This is how I see it.

We walked away from the draft with 2 of the top 15 players in the country. From a historical standpoint, we went into this season with two receivers from last year. One was returning from injury and the other has barely played. Not exactly a core that is going to scare anyone. Although we cut both starting guards from last year, we still had Moore, Fletcher, Fischer, and the free agent market to shore these potitions up. Not sure if you noticed but starting quality guards are much cheaper and easier to aquire than starting quality receivers. Although I am still a Hutch fan, I thought it was more important for the Skins to get our offense two dimensional again like 1999. Had we ignored the WR position this offseason, we would have seen 8 to 9 guys in the box against Davis. Not sure about you guys, but I didn't like how that worked out last season.

Additionally, this post sounds like something that would have been written after both had a season of the NFL under their belts, not before either has even played in a regular season game.

Also, we will be resigning Jansen at some point soon. And he will be pricey. As per your point, three offensive linemen making first round type money is just too much loot tied up in one area.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash2-sm.gif" border=0>

[ by The Dark Horse on August 20, 2001.]