Thinking Skins Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I'm sorry for starting a new thread on this, but I've been feeling pretty bad lately as a Redskins fan because of all the BS I've got to hear about from Redskins fans and Steve Czeban. First I want to analyze the statements that we made too many bad moves last year and this year, which implies that Gibbs doesn't belong here. What moves did we make that were mistakes? - THere are three moves that I would think we could be answers to this question. (1) Signing Mark Brunell (2) Signing Mike Barrow (3) Trading for Clinton Portis I'm not going to argue that the Brunell deal wasn't a bad one cause even I don't like that we signed him. But BRUNELL IS NOT THE BUM REDSKINS FANS SAY HE IS. The man struggled in Gibbs's offense, is that something new? Gibbs runs a complicated offense and it takes time to learn it. Gibbs's offense requires time in the pocket, which Brunell was not getting. Gibbs's offense requires RECIEVERS TO CATCH THE BALL, which our WR's were not doing last year, especially at the beginning of the year. Analyzing the Brunell move from the Redskins side of it, they were in a position where they NEEDED a QB to play for them. They had a QB in Ramsey who hadn't proven himself in this league. He was also coming off a brusied foot. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO INVST EVERYTHING IN AN INJURED PLAYER WHO HASN'T PROVEN ANYTHING? I wouldn't. So we needed a QB. So we signed the best player we could afford with our money. The man had problems picking up the offense last year, and fans turned on him. BUt this is a guy who has been an All-Pro player. He literally won games for Jacksonville 2 years ago. He still has talent! The Barrow move is not a bad one because the man got hurt. That's just a bad flip of the coin. You can't say a signing is bad based on a guy getting injured. When we signed him, he was one of the hottest free agents out there and we paid him like he was. Now, on the CP move, I just don't understand how people can say that because Gibbs made this move he's stupid? We signed a 1300 yard runner, and thats a bad move? So what if we could have drafted a rookie, <i>I coulda been a millionare if Ida played my lottery numbers right, but I didn't, </i> neither did the Redskins. But just like me not being a millionare doesn't make my like suck, the Redskins not getting one of the rookie RB's does not make the CP move a bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 I had to stop that message and start a new one cause I don't like to write my messages too long in this. When I see messages too long I don't like reading them. Anyway, back to my point at hand. So last year we signed the following players: Philip Daniels Cornelius Griffin Shawn Springs Marcus Washington Walt Harris Joe Salava Brian Kalakowski All these players were big contributors to our team last year, or showed that they would hard working pickups. Are you all, as fans, going to tell me that these guys were bad moves? THis is like half our defense. But Gibbs is stupid though, right? These guys just fell into his lap and we didn't do anything? If you're going to get mad at Gibbs, then thats cool. But when you call something of his a weakness, analyze both sides of it CAUSE IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS, YOU'LL PROBABLY BE WRONG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Can we please stop saying Brunell isn't as bad as everyone says, or that he's not actually that bad? That man was the worst QB in football last year, Gibbs' system is not rocket science, or chemical engineering..... That was the worst 9 games of QB that I've seen in my nearly 20 years on earth. Also, all those defensive guys you listed were hand picked by Greg Williams, that comes straight from Gibbs himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 i agree 1. i don't know what happend to brunell. its amazing how he has fallen off so quickly. i would expect a vet like him to get the offense pretty quickly but i guess not. btw the offense looked pretty simple to me. :laugh: 2. i the barrow move was bad b/c the did was and still is old. its also not like he got injured from contact or playing, he has a chronic mechanical injury which IMO means he's getting OLDER. there's no telling if he can come back and ever play 4quarters for 16+ games again. i hope for the best though. 3. trading for portis was a great move. the rb position is set as long as he wants to remain here and be productive. giving up a 2nd for him plus champ hurts still. but i'm pretty much over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Originally posted by blakman211 Gibbs's offense requires RECIEVERS TO CATCH THE BALL My favorite statement of this entire post. But, really, I agree. Brunell did not look right last year or the year before. It's obviously an aberration or he hit a wall and is on a serious decline. Hopefully he comes out of it and can help us if neccessary. If not, then it was a mistake, and these things happen. At least Gibbs DIDN'T draft Shuler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 To continue on this for a min, and this is just a sidethought that came into my mind as I started this topic, but I've been thinking it for a few months now. Look at our Free Agency this year. Now compare it to a team like Tennessee. Tennessee was in Salary Cap HELL so they had to cut their whole team. WE DIDN'T. We've been in positions where we wouldn't give our own players big deals, but we've never been in a situation where we just overspent and had to pay the price. At the start of free agency, we had a few million dollars in cap room, not great, but not horrible. What we did, was something that I KNOW we were planning the whole time because they'd been saying it would get done soon enough; We restructured Samuels contract. What was the result? We had enough money that we could get rid of a CANCER on our team in Lavernous Coles. (I call him a cancer, not because of what he did while he was here, he was a player I respected very much while he was here. But the minute he asked to leave and started complaining about it we had a divided locker room. A DIVIDED TEAM CANNOT BE UNITED! So since LC was the reason for the Division in the locker room, I call him a cancer) Getting rid of LC cost us an extra $6 mil. But we had the money to afford it, and not have to deal with a divided team. I know the proof is in the pudding and we'll know everything on judgement day. But Game 1 is a few months away, and I don't like the tone I'm hearing from the fans so we've got to have a little talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Originally posted by mookie0720 Can we please stop saying Brunell isn't as bad as everyone says, or that he's not actually that bad? Well what do you want me to say? How do you want me to word it? Would you like me to say he's a bum and should have never been drafted into this league? I know, he should have never played for Jacksonville! He should have never taken them to the AFC championship game! He shouldn't have a career rating of about 89, right? Listen, the dude had a bad year lasy year, and contrary to your belief, Gibbs's system is pretty hard to learn. Calling it rocket science may be oversimplifying it. At least they get to do all the hard stuff in private. When Gibbs first introduced it, his team started 0-5. But I guess Joe Thiesman is a bum too! [/b] Also, all those defensive guys you listed were hand picked by Greg Williams, that comes straight from Gibbs himself. WHATS YOUR POINT? SO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE WILLIAMS CREDIT FOR THE SUCCESS, BUT BLAME GIBBS FOR THE FAILURES. Damn I thought we at least had some sense of loyalty. If these guys are all Williams's picks, then all that says is that GIBBS KNOWS HOW TO DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY, a quality that any good coach or GM must have. So move on with this hating Gibbs/Redskins and lets just talk football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I don't think Gibbs is too old to coach, but it appears as if he could use some help negotiating the contracts with these high maintenance ex-Canes and in scouting and setting up the draft plan for the club. Gibbs is doing too much and the danger is that a guy his age will wear down and be less effective as a Head Coach, which is the job we need him to fill the most. I would rather have an Ozzie Newsome type in the FO that could be a partner of the HC and work out some of these issues that end up on the front page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Originally posted by Leonard Washington i agree Glad to see you agree, but lets see if I can convince you further. 2. i the barrow move was bad b/c the did was and still is old. its also not like he got injured from contact or playing, he has a chronic mechanical injury which IMO means he's getting OLDER. there's no telling if he can come back and ever play 4quarters for 16+ games again. i hope for the best though. I want to state an opinion of Barrow that was shared by most of the media when we signed him: "They also signed 12 year veteran Michael Barrow, who lead the NFC in tackles last year, to anchor the middle line backing position that was previously run by recently released Jeremiah Trotter. Barrow should help this team a lot in the middle due to his great field awareness racking up 148 tackles last year which was more than Trotter who lead the Redskins in tackles with 113" So when we signed him, everybody thought it was sugh a good move to help sure up with our defense. The fact that he got hurt and we had somebody else as backup who could do a good job does not mean he was a bad pickup. We wanted to go into the season with quality players at each position. We attempted to do just that. The fact that he got hurt does not mean he's not a quality player. It just means he got hurt. I mean the Rams signed Trent Green to a big contract their SB year. He got hurt and they went on to have a great year with Kurt Warner. Does that mean they shouldn't have signed Trent Green? Hell no! They wanted to go into the season with somebody they truested at the spot. We all would call them fools if they went into the season with an arena league star and he DIDN'T do well. Thats the same thing with us. Nobody knew the potential Pierce had at MLB until he actually played the position. So for us to say that we could just ignore the MLB spot and depend on him is ludacris. We signed the player that was tops in the league the year before. I'd call that a good signing. He got hurt and it didn't work out the way we wanted it to. But that doesn't make it a bad signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Originally posted by bulldog I don't think Gibbs is too old to coach, but it appears as if he could use some help negotiating the contracts with these high maintenance ex-Canes and in scouting and setting up the draft plan for the club. Gibbs is doing too much and the danger is that a guy his age will wear down and be less effective as a Head Coach, which is the job we need him to fill the most. I would rather have an Ozzie Newsome type in the FO that could be a partner of the HC and work out some of these issues that end up on the front page. Bulldog, tell me this, who is the Eagles GM? What about the Patriots, who is their GM? ... If no name comes to mind, don't feel bad because neither team has one. They do things in a similar operation where they have a VP of Player Personnell and a Coach. Do you want to know one reason that there is a VP of Player Personnell and not a GM? Wel, back in the day, remember all the fights between Gibbs and Bethard? Remember the fights between Gibbs and Casserly? What about Norv and Casserly? When Snyder came in he got past the question of "Who wins the argument between the coach and the GM" because he said the Coach will always win because there is no GM. Even the role that Snyder takes is more of a role of wanting to LEARN the game and LEARN from Gibbs. The "three headed monster" of Gibbs, Cerrato, Snyder is not like a pair of runaway prisoners all running in different directions, but tied together at the waist, as Czeban likes to believe. Whenever you hear Snyder talk, which has been much less latelt, you hear him say that the Redskins are operating in leau of a three year window. So the three of them are analyzing the possibilities of their moves, good and bad. Its not Just Gibbs; Its not just Snyder; and its not Just Cerrato. Each of them has a strength and they are all using it. One thing that seperates the Redskins from other organizations is that Snyder has the money, and is willing to spend money up-front on contracts. We see how this hurt us this year, but it definately helps in signing players. Gibbs came in and showed Snyder how to be more restrictive with Redskins One. But just like it would be ludacris to think that President Bush does his job by himself, its the same way thinking that Gibbs is a one man operation working with the Redskins. Gibbs's name is just on things since he is the man in charge, just like Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Originally posted by blakman211 I want to state an opinion of Barrow that was shared by most of the media when we signed him: "They also signed 12 year veteran Michael Barrow, who lead the NFC in tackles last year, to anchor the middle line backing position that was previously run by recently released Jeremiah Trotter. Barrow should help this team a lot in the middle due to his great field awareness racking up 148 tackles last year which was more than Trotter who lead the Redskins in tackles with 113" So when we signed him, everybody thought it was sugh a good move to help sure up with our defense. The fact that he got hurt and we had somebody else as backup who could do a good job does not mean he was a bad pickup. We wanted to go into the season with quality players at each position. We attempted to do just that. The fact that he got hurt does not mean he's not a quality player. It just means he got hurt. I mean the Rams signed Trent Green to a big contract their SB year. He got hurt and they went on to have a great year with Kurt Warner. Does that mean they shouldn't have signed Trent Green? Hell no! They wanted to go into the season with somebody they truested at the spot. We all would call them fools if they went into the season with an arena league star and he DIDN'T do well. Thats the same thing with us. Nobody knew the potential Pierce had at MLB until he actually played the position. So for us to say that we could just ignore the MLB spot and depend on him is ludacris. We signed the player that was tops in the league the year before. I'd call that a good signing. He got hurt and it didn't work out the way we wanted it to. But that doesn't make it a bad signing. my point isn't that barrow is a qualtity player (at least in 2003). my point is what do you expect when you get a 12yr vet? he's getting to a point where his body is starting to break down...not get stronger. i'm not saying he's DONE, but wear and tear injuries are more likely to happen with him. so using that rational trent green wasn't a bad move b/c (a) he was still young ( he was injured from contact not from arm/elbow tendinitis. btw if you like high mileage items, i got a 1992 seville you might be interested in. it was a former motor trend car of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Michael Barrow's $2.5 million bonus is NOT the reason the Redskins have had to watch their pennies in free agency :laugh: Remember that even the mistake-free Patriots make mistakes, such as signing Roosevelt Colvin to a big contract, a linebacker whose injuries have prevented him from being the player they anticipated. What has hurt the Redskins is paying big money to younger players supposedly in their primes who fail to produce at a top level. The Redskins paid Coles a $13 million bonus and got reduced returns at receiver. Was he one of the top receivers in the NFL? No. The Redskins have been paying Arrington and Samuels big money over the past several seasons and yet as of 2004 where are we with them? Arrington missed most of the season and the defense didn't miss a beat without him. Samuels came back and had a solid season, but is still a rung or two below the performances we expect from a guy with a $16 million bonus now in his pocket. Gardner we took with the #15 pick in 2001 and he never showed the work ethic or consistency to develop into a cornerstone player for us. Now we are trying to deal him. Overall, these players and others weren't complete busts, in fact some had good seasons mixed in with the so-so and the poor. But we weren't getting true value. Where is the Ray Lewis in Arrington? Where is the Jim Lachey in Samuels? Where is the Marvin Harrison in Coles? Never materialized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.