Gibbs

Even as I've been a harsh critic of Gibbs the personnel man, I give him credit for picks like Golston and Montgomery, - those are legitimate gems unearthed in what has traditionally been No Man's Land in Washington: the 5th, 6th, and 7th round of the NFL draft.

What bothers me more, is the expansive foundation Gibbs could have laid without giving away 3rd and 4th round draft picks as though they were ketchup packs at Burger King. In addition to the fact that those are picks we gave away for a guy who's not even here! Duckett lasted one season and was inactive for weeks! And Brandon Lloyd is right behind him.

The hideous repercussions of those moves far outweigh any positive personnel move he's made. If he were any other man than Joe Gibbs, on any other team that made that kind of outrageous mistake, he'd have been fired on the spot.

Has it crossed anybody's mind that maybe with all of those picks, the replacements for Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Sean Taylor or Santana Moss might have been able to contribute this season when we're getting hammered by injuries?

Exactly. I think a big reason injuries seem to devastate us so much is the lack of quality depth to fill in the holes. A prime example is how well middle round picks are contributing for us right now (Golston, Montgomery, Cooley, Blades, etc). Another handful of guys like that and our injury bug might not sting as much.

Remember when the Pats drafted Laurence Maroney with Joseph Addai still on the board?

I guess Pioli is a terrible GM, huh?

Are you saying Maroney is a bust? Addai right now is having a better start to his carreer, but Maroney is as, or more talented a RB, he defiently needs to stay healthy to prove it but that guy can play.

Are you saying Maroney is a bust? Addai right now is having a better start to his carreer, but Maroney is as, or more talented a RB, he defiently needs to stay healthy to prove it but that guy can play.

I think his quote was in response to your post regarding the comparison between McIntosh and the oakland lb. They're both solid players, just because one has slightly out performed the other to this point doesn't mean that their careers will end up that way. I think we've seen alot out of Rocky to be excited about in the future regardless of what the oak rb does.

If you use the justification that if player A was picked in round 5 and player B was picked in round 7, and player B turns out to be an equal or better pro, that therefore player A was a bad pick regardless of his overall quality, I think it's a flawed arguement.

Whew that sentence is confusing but I think you get my point. Using the same logic a qb who is equal or less than Tom Brady that was picked in the 5th round or earlier is a bad pick because another team got more value in a later round. I don't think that judging it like that is representative of the true value of a player/pick.

Even if it's 7 busts out of 32, that's almost 22%. I wouldn't say that's low by any means. And it definitely points to there being more to drafting than just watching some college ball on a Saturday afternoon.

So you think an 80% success rate is low?! From where I come from 80% is doing pretty good especially in something as speculative as the draft.

So you think an 80% success rate is low?! From where I come from 80% is doing pretty good especially in something as speculative as the draft.

Speculative?

I thought you said: Anybody that even remotely follows college football can make a good pick in the 1st round

Speculative?

I thought you said: Anybody that even remotely follows college football can make a good pick in the 1st round

Thats what I said and obvoiusly the % proves me correct.

The draft is speculative. The player is being selected based on his past performance and future potential (kind of like stocks). There is no sure thing but the 1st round pick is as close to a sure thing as you can get.

Thats what I said and obvoiusly the % proves me correct.

The draft is speculative. The player is being selected based on his past performance and future potential (kind of like stocks). There is no sure thing but the 1st round pick is as close to a sure thing as you can get.

??

You're flip-flopping all over the place. Once you get your take straightened out let me know.

??

You're flip-flopping all over the place. Once you get your take straightened out let me know.

I dont see how I am flipping. I know its hard for you to admit I am correct but I understand.

I dont see how I am flipping. I know its hard for you to admit I am correct but I understand.

LOL you're so far from being correct it's laughable.

Try to follow me, first you said "Anybody that even remotely follows college football can make a good pick in the 1st round".

Now you use the word "speculative" to describe the draft which seems to fly in the face of your theory that "anybody that even remotely follows college football can make a good pick in the 1st round".

You don't see the contradiction??

LOL you're so far from being correct it's laughable.

Try to follow me, first you said "Anybody that even remotely follows college football can make a good pick in the 1st round".

Now you use the word "speculative" to describe the draft which seems to fly in the face of your theory that "anybody that even remotely follows college football can make a good pick in the 1st round".

You don't see the contradiction??

I think you are looking for a contradiction that does not exist. Just because something is speculative does not automatically make it hard. The draft is a speculative thing. Making a good 1st round pick is something that anyone that remotely follows college ball can do (its not hard).

Some things that are speculative are hard (like betting on horses).

Difficulty and speculation are not directly related.