Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-29-2007, 12:21 AM   #106
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91 View Post
Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell.
Wait, what?!

First of all, I have no freaking clue how putting the BMOC from Georgia Tech on the LOS 5 yards from the sideline will improve how quickly Jason Campbell learns makes the correct reads at all. Seems to the ORP (ordinary reasonable person) that the only people who affect how Campbell makes his decisions are Campbell and the dudes blocking for Campbell. Order of football operations, man! The blockers have to do their jobs so that the passer can do his job so that the receivers can do their job. Every action of a foward pass since 1930 has occured in that order.

Playing with 3 scrubs for wideouts, Campbell would mature at exactly the same rate he would with Moss, Johnson, and Cooley. The Skins wouldn't score as many points, but that doesn't mean Campbell wouldn't be learning.

Secondly, that's a 3 WR set. I'm assuming you'd also have Cooley and Portis in the game. Well, you don't have a blocker at TE or FB, so the running potential is compromised.

I firmly believe that every passing offense has a ceiling based on it's 11 players. By theory of order of football operations, exchanging the role of one wideout for another is the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to increase that ceiling. Going to a 3 WR set with Johnson in decreases the average amount of time the protection will hold because theres one less guy there. So right off the bat, you are worse off. On top of that, your passing potential with Moss, Cooley and El is near maximum potential already. After all, you have ONE ball to go around. Moss and Cooley already don't get enough touches as is. Both have more value after the catch than Johnson. So in theory, taking catches away from those guys compromises your offensive potential.

So what's the only way to improve offensive potential? Split Randle El's and Lloyd's catches evenly among Johnson, Moss, and Cooley. So now, you've either orchestrated a trade up costing us Ladell Betts for a guy who (best case scenario) will be thrown to somewhere between 16-24 times next year. If he's some sort of god, he will catch 80% of those passes (No receiver caught more than 75% [T. Gonzales] of the passes thrown in their direction this year) and end up with 16-18 catches. Most likely he's just a very good college receiver, will catch around 63%, or 10 to 12 passes as a rookie.

He'd be labeled a bust. And that's giving Lloyd and El ZERO catches next year. So now you have a "bust" (who is actually just under utilized), and two VERY unhappy players behind him.

And that's a best case scenario. More than likely, bringing in Calvin Johnson will HURT our offense because he will steal catches from Moss and Cooley, both of whom are going to be better players at this point in their career. So the most likely outcome is that bringing in Calvin Johnson will hurt our offense next year.

Did I mention that while hurting our offense, we still have done nothing to bring ANY help to our pathetic defensive line?

The whole philosophy having multpile skilled targets in the passing game is that they will ALL be underutilized equally. Basically, spread the ball around and make it harder for the defense to defend us. But no matter how much you pass, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of the skilled targets to earn what he is making. There's just not enough chances to do so. And if the best player of the group is not getting as many catches as he reasonably can, you are hurting your offensive potential.

Moss and Cooley are both underutilized as is. Bringing in Calvin Johnson makes this underutilization more prevalant while costing us Ladell Betts and any chance to get D Line help.

Such a trade would be an unmittigated disaster. Randle El and Lloyd only make up a very small percentage of the offense. Using a top 10 pick to reassign that responsibility is an utter waste at best, grounds for firing all involved at worst.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-29-2007, 12:45 AM   #107
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 36
Posts: 12,623
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

What would we give up?? Other than Ladell Betts, I don't see where we have the type of quality depth to make a move like this, unless we mortgaged off MORE draft picks, which is just a horror to think of. And to get rid of Betts after his performance last year and Portis' injuries, would I'm sad to say, fit right into the type of lunacy I'm used to from this FO. Blech.
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 02:50 AM   #108
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

all these rumors help the team get trade leverage. I really wouldn't mind CJ, but giving up your first born to get him might not be the greatest idea ever.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 03:03 AM   #109
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Wait, what?!

First of all, I have no freaking clue how putting the BMOC from Georgia Tech on the LOS 5 yards from the sideline will improve how quickly Jason Campbell learns makes the correct reads at all. Seems to the ORP (ordinary reasonable person) that the only people who affect how Campbell makes his decisions are Campbell and the dudes blocking for Campbell. Order of football operations, man! The blockers have to do their jobs so that the passer can do his job so that the receivers can do their job. Every action of a foward pass since 1930 has occured in that order.

Playing with 3 scrubs for wideouts, Campbell would mature at exactly the same rate he would with Moss, Johnson, and Cooley. The Skins wouldn't score as many points, but that doesn't mean Campbell wouldn't be learning.

Secondly, that's a 3 WR set. I'm assuming you'd also have Cooley and Portis in the game. Well, you don't have a blocker at TE or FB, so the running potential is compromised.

I firmly believe that every passing offense has a ceiling based on it's 11 players. By theory of order of football operations, exchanging the role of one wideout for another is the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to increase that ceiling. Going to a 3 WR set with Johnson in decreases the average amount of time the protection will hold because theres one less guy there. So right off the bat, you are worse off. On top of that, your passing potential with Moss, Cooley and El is near maximum potential already. After all, you have ONE ball to go around. Moss and Cooley already don't get enough touches as is. Both have more value after the catch than Johnson. So in theory, taking catches away from those guys compromises your offensive potential.

So what's the only way to improve offensive potential? Split Randle El's and Lloyd's catches evenly among Johnson, Moss, and Cooley. So now, you've either orchestrated a trade up costing us Ladell Betts for a guy who (best case scenario) will be thrown to somewhere between 16-24 times next year. If he's some sort of god, he will catch 80% of those passes (No receiver caught more than 75% [T. Gonzales] of the passes thrown in their direction this year) and end up with 16-18 catches. Most likely he's just a very good college receiver, will catch around 63%, or 10 to 12 passes as a rookie.

He'd be labeled a bust. And that's giving Lloyd and El ZERO catches next year. So now you have a "bust" (who is actually just under utilized), and two VERY unhappy players behind him.

And that's a best case scenario. More than likely, bringing in Calvin Johnson will HURT our offense because he will steal catches from Moss and Cooley, both of whom are going to be better players at this point in their career. So the most likely outcome is that bringing in Calvin Johnson will hurt our offense next year.

Did I mention that while hurting our offense, we still have done nothing to bring ANY help to our pathetic defensive line?

The whole philosophy having multpile skilled targets in the passing game is that they will ALL be underutilized equally. Basically, spread the ball around and make it harder for the defense to defend us. But no matter how much you pass, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of the skilled targets to earn what he is making. There's just not enough chances to do so. And if the best player of the group is not getting as many catches as he reasonably can, you are hurting your offensive potential.

Moss and Cooley are both underutilized as is. Bringing in Calvin Johnson makes this underutilization more prevalant while costing us Ladell Betts and any chance to get D Line help.

Such a trade would be an unmittigated disaster. Randle El and Lloyd only make up a very small percentage of the offense. Using a top 10 pick to reassign that responsibility is an utter waste at best, grounds for firing all involved at worst.

there's like, a million fallacies in logic here. maybe lloyd and el didn't get a whole ton of catches, cause, you know, they're not very good. It could speed up campbell's learning in some ways in that he'd have confidence his WRs could go up and get the ball for him, which means less worrying about job security or a guy dropping balls.

going 3WR doesn't translate to automatically being worse off. it's harder to cover and can keep more guys back on defenses and open up running lanes. west coast/quick release plays (like all slants) can be used if the D goes blitz heavy on you.

as for limited opportunity... if you're guys are making plays, you'll stay on the field longer and give yourself more chances to make plays. the colts don't seem to have any problems with this, and the skins even had 3 WRs with 1,000yards in the same season. arguing that you CAN have too many weapons is pretty weak at best. arguing about relative needs is a better case, but you really can't say our #2 WR spot is sown up, regardless of the money spent there.


it's like you think WRs are all worthless and interchangeable. I personally wouldn't trade up for CJ unless the deal was amazing (like our 1st and our 5th to move up :P ) obviously i don't see that happening. this may just be smokescreen though.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 04:07 AM   #110
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy View Post
there's like, a million fallacies in logic here. maybe lloyd and el didn't get a whole ton of catches, cause, you know, they're not very good. It could speed up campbell's learning in some ways in that he'd have confidence his WRs could go up and get the ball for him, which means less worrying about job security or a guy dropping balls.

going 3WR doesn't translate to automatically being worse off. it's harder to cover and can keep more guys back on defenses and open up running lanes. west coast/quick release plays (like all slants) can be used if the D goes blitz heavy on you.

as for limited opportunity... if you're guys are making plays, you'll stay on the field longer and give yourself more chances to make plays. the colts don't seem to have any problems with this, and the skins even had 3 WRs with 1,000yards in the same season. arguing that you CAN have too many weapons is pretty weak at best. arguing about relative needs is a better case, but you really can't say our #2 WR spot is sown up, regardless of the money spent there.


it's like you think WRs are all worthless and interchangeable. I personally wouldn't trade up for CJ unless the deal was amazing (like our 1st and our 5th to move up :P ) obviously i don't see that happening. this may just be smokescreen though.
Ultimately, whether you believe I explained it well or not, it's hard to dispute the point that only playing with one football reduces the value of any teams 3rd or 4th target. In any sports league, the name of the game is quality. With a waiver wire of a million possible replacement players, quality is the only thing that matters.

Taking Calvin Johnson in the top 5 only makes sense if your team has no receiving options better than Johnson. We have two. Regardless of whether or not you think highly of Johnson, you'd have to admit he'd be hard pressed to meet his lofty expectations. What guarentees do we have that he would ever be a better receiver than Santana Moss, who is just unbelieveable after the catch.

As a rookie, the only thing we could expect him to do would be to replace Randle El in the starting lineup.

I'm not arguing that having extra weapons is bad. Obviously it's not. I'm arguing that taking oppertunities away from the receivers with the best ability after the catch is never a good idea. The whole hurting the offense thing assumes that having the big name Calvin Johnson would cost Cooley and Moss some looks. They get the ball less, our passing game won't do as well. That's just simple logic.

On the contrary, we could easily improve the passing game by treating Johnson exactly like what he would be in this offense, a glorified 3rd target (at least as a rookie). Now some the balls that went to Randle El and Lloyd, who aren't very good receivers, go to Calvin Johnson (a significantly better receiver even as a rook), and thats a significant upgrade in talent. But it's not a great deal of total chances for Calvin Johnson. Moss and Cooley still would be carrying most of the load.

If Calvin Johnson gets the ball 2-3 times a game in a run heavy offense, how can that justify the 6th pick, much less trading up for him?

The truth is that the sheer lack of looks that our No. 2 WR should be getting hides most talent deficiencies. This also means, obviously, that the sheer lack of looks would mask the talent of a player like Calvin Johnson. I wouldn't expect this number to be any higher than it was last year, regardless of who the 2nd target will be.

It's not that I think all receviers are fungible. Obviously the position value isn't great due to the lack of consistent touches, but my main contention is that receivers are evalutated in all the wrong ways. Calvin Johnson is a big man who runs 4.3 and has soft hands. Great, nothing wrong with that at all. But again, if I'm scouting talent, those attributes grab my attention, but do nothing to sell me on the player. Can he block (In Johnson's case, probably)? Can he turn the 10 yard dig into a big play with consistency (who knows)? Does he understand route running from multiple perspectives? Those are the important questions, and for a top 10 pick, Johnson's college career leaves them somewhat unanswered (Thank you Reggie Ball).

4.3 and big with soft hands is nice and everything, but this ain't a beauty contest. Give me Moss and Cooley anyday. You can have CJ.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 06:52 AM   #111
Impact Rookie
 
vaoutlaws2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fayettenam, NC
Age: 42
Posts: 806
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

one word on this one...ummmm NO
__________________
The future is obviously right now!
vaoutlaws2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 08:13 AM   #112
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Between the blog & the actual article in the washpost this got a lot clearer. The article just said Gibbs has talked to 3 teams, 2 of which were about moving up. Not such a big deal.

so Gibbs said he likes CJ, of course he does. In 04 Gibbs' first pick was Sean Taylor, which says something about his objectivity for what the team needs. He's an offensive coach, but he wants to win & will make the right decision.

I'm not saying that he won't pick CJ, but it'll have to be the right deal. I do believe the org. has wised up in that regard. Let's hope they continue to anyway.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:11 AM   #113
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,733
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Ultimately, whether you believe I explained it well or not, it's hard to dispute the point that only playing with one football reduces the value of any teams 3rd or 4th target. In any sports league, the name of the game is quality. With a waiver wire of a million possible replacement players, quality is the only thing that matters.

Taking Calvin Johnson in the top 5 only makes sense if your team has no receiving options better than Johnson. We have two. Regardless of whether or not you think highly of Johnson, you'd have to admit he'd be hard pressed to meet his lofty expectations. What guarentees do we have that he would ever be a better receiver than Santana Moss, who is just unbelieveable after the catch.

As a rookie, the only thing we could expect him to do would be to replace Randle El in the starting lineup.

I'm not arguing that having extra weapons is bad. Obviously it's not. I'm arguing that taking oppertunities away from the receivers with the best ability after the catch is never a good idea. The whole hurting the offense thing assumes that having the big name Calvin Johnson would cost Cooley and Moss some looks. They get the ball less, our passing game won't do as well. That's just simple logic.

On the contrary, we could easily improve the passing game by treating Johnson exactly like what he would be in this offense, a glorified 3rd target (at least as a rookie). Now some the balls that went to Randle El and Lloyd, who aren't very good receivers, go to Calvin Johnson (a significantly better receiver even as a rook), and thats a significant upgrade in talent. But it's not a great deal of total chances for Calvin Johnson. Moss and Cooley still would be carrying most of the load.

If Calvin Johnson gets the ball 2-3 times a game in a run heavy offense, how can that justify the 6th pick, much less trading up for him?

The truth is that the sheer lack of looks that our No. 2 WR should be getting hides most talent deficiencies. This also means, obviously, that the sheer lack of looks would mask the talent of a player like Calvin Johnson. I wouldn't expect this number to be any higher than it was last year, regardless of who the 2nd target will be.

It's not that I think all receviers are fungible. Obviously the position value isn't great due to the lack of consistent touches, but my main contention is that receivers are evalutated in all the wrong ways. Calvin Johnson is a big man who runs 4.3 and has soft hands. Great, nothing wrong with that at all. But again, if I'm scouting talent, those attributes grab my attention, but do nothing to sell me on the player. Can he block (In Johnson's case, probably)? Can he turn the 10 yard dig into a big play with consistency (who knows)? Does he understand route running from multiple perspectives? Those are the important questions, and for a top 10 pick, Johnson's college career leaves them somewhat unanswered (Thank you Reggie Ball).

4.3 and big with soft hands is nice and everything, but this ain't a beauty contest. Give me Moss and Cooley anyday. You can have CJ.
He's actually a pretty darn good blocker in the running game and I love Cooley, but he's not the same type of recieving threat as CJ.
__________________
"Ahhh, so you're stupid in 3 languages?"
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:40 AM   #114
Special Teams
 
skinsfan242's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 152
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Can we please get some perspective on this whole thing? Here is what i think is going on. We don't want to stay at the 6th pick period. We haven't found anyone we like there. We like C.J. and he won't be there. So we discussed possibilities with teams because that is what you do. Gibbs has said he has discussed with three teams, two moving up, 1 moving down. They have also discussed the Briggs deal. What does all this tell you. NOTHING. Gibbs said he like a couple players high in the draft, not because he really does, but because he wants to leave the impression they don't just like C.J. He said he has offers so other teams will sweeten their offers. Although they actually offered the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, is it really a bad deal? You have to pay the 6th pick alot of money and he doesn't think anyone there is worth that money. So why not get a 26 year old proven commodity, at a position of weakness. Whether you like it or not, teams know to run to that side because our LB over there stinks, they don't run at Washington, and when Lavar was there they couldn't run there either. Our Dline is a year removed from being really good. At the 31st pick, we are saying we can get a DE in which the drop-off may not be that bad. Plus he will have something to prove.
In my opinion i like what they are doing.
I also like the trade we proposed, if we were to get anything less it would be bad. Would you Rather have Briggs AND Crowder or T. Tyler, or just Amobi.
On a side note, NO WAY IN THE WORLD BETTS IS TRADED, if there is one thing Gibbs loves, it is running the Football, and he knows what Portis and Betts can do togeather.
skinsfan242 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:02 AM   #115
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan242 View Post
Can we please get some perspective on this whole thing? Here is what i think is going on. We don't want to stay at the 6th pick period. We haven't found anyone we like there. We like C.J. and he won't be there. So we discussed possibilities with teams because that is what you do. Gibbs has said he has discussed with three teams, two moving up, 1 moving down. They have also discussed the Briggs deal. What does all this tell you. NOTHING. Gibbs said he like a couple players high in the draft, not because he really does, but because he wants to leave the impression they don't just like C.J. He said he has offers so other teams will sweeten their offers. Although they actually offered the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, is it really a bad deal? You have to pay the 6th pick alot of money and he doesn't think anyone there is worth that money. So why not get a 26 year old proven commodity, at a position of weakness. Whether you like it or not, teams know to run to that side because our LB over there stinks, they don't run at Washington, and when Lavar was there they couldn't run there either. Our Dline is a year removed from being really good. At the 31st pick, we are saying we can get a DE in which the drop-off may not be that bad. Plus he will have something to prove.
In my opinion i like what they are doing.
I also like the trade we proposed, if we were to get anything less it would be bad. Would you Rather have Briggs AND Crowder or T. Tyler, or just Amobi.
On a side note, NO WAY IN THE WORLD BETTS IS TRADED, if there is one thing Gibbs loves, it is running the Football, and he knows what Portis and Betts can do togeather.
good post. we skins fans have gotten to be a hyper sensitive bunch in the offseason! At least now our fans (at least on this site) are fed up w/winning the spring super bowl.
I agree w/your points about the Briggs trade, just don't want to see him paid $20mil guaranteed. Paying a rookie at #6 will be high too, but if I'm correct the salary cap has to be structured w/an allotment for rookie salaries, so it may be easier on the cap to sign the #6 than Briggs.

CC or other capologists have any info to opine on that?
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:03 AM   #116
Thank You, Sean.
 
Gmanc711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Age: 28
Posts: 7,502
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru View Post
He's actually a pretty darn good blocker in the running game and I love Cooley, but he's not the same type of recieving threat as CJ.
Alot of people said that about Mike Williams and Charels Rogers too, and about 100 other recivers I dont wanna take the time to think about. Cooley is proven, CJ is not. I'm not against CJ, but if were going to take a risk, why not take it to fufill a position we actually need help at.
__________________
#21
Gmanc711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:05 AM   #117
Wildcard Bitches
 
RobH4413's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bethesda, MD
Age: 29
Posts: 2,489
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan242 View Post
Can we please get some perspective on this whole thing? Here is what i think is going on. We don't want to stay at the 6th pick period. We haven't found anyone we like there. We like C.J. and he won't be there. So we discussed possibilities with teams because that is what you do. Gibbs has said he has discussed with three teams, two moving up, 1 moving down. They have also discussed the Briggs deal. What does all this tell you. NOTHING. Gibbs said he like a couple players high in the draft, not because he really does, but because he wants to leave the impression they don't just like C.J. He said he has offers so other teams will sweeten their offers. Although they actually offered the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, is it really a bad deal? You have to pay the 6th pick alot of money and he doesn't think anyone there is worth that money. So why not get a 26 year old proven commodity, at a position of weakness. Whether you like it or not, teams know to run to that side because our LB over there stinks, they don't run at Washington, and when Lavar was there they couldn't run there either. Our Dline is a year removed from being really good. At the 31st pick, we are saying we can get a DE in which the drop-off may not be that bad. Plus he will have something to prove.
In my opinion i like what they are doing.
I also like the trade we proposed, if we were to get anything less it would be bad. Would you Rather have Briggs AND Crowder or T. Tyler, or just Amobi.
On a side note, NO WAY IN THE WORLD BETTS IS TRADED, if there is one thing Gibbs loves, it is running the Football, and he knows what Portis and Betts can do togeather.
Paragraph indentations are a wonderful thing my friend. I suggest you look into them.

As far as G-Tripps first long post goes... I really tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying. Granted, your making several assumptions... (That guy pointed to the colts as a retort)... But I think in this style of offense your thinking is on the right track.


Essentially here is what I understood what you were basically saying: In any run based offense where you don't have an MVP at QB, maxamizing your options won't necessarily maximize your success, especially when it comes from neglecting greater needs.

Here is a case where we failed to grasp an immense play-book last season, and all signs probably point to a simplified version this year. Why add more, when if we execute the basic run-first oriented offense, the receivers will be open.

The last thing we need is 3-4 receiver sets where we give ourselves away to the pass. Remember how well the play actions started working last year? It will be finesse once Saunders and Co. begin to master the simple timing of there simple offense, ... once this happens, the final 650 pages begin to unfold and the gadgetry will work. Here's to justified optimism in 07.

Practically same OL, same running backs, same QB, same receivers, same coaches... let's draft a damn d-lineman and forget about our offense for the time being.
__________________
This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!
RobH4413 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:27 AM   #118
Playmaker
 
artmonkforhallofamein07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charleston , SC
Posts: 4,701
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

You know what guys... I am sick and tired of getting all worked up over the Redskins. If they do a deal to move up or down or get Briggs I'm going to accept and cheer for my team. These guys have to know what they are doing, come on Joe Gibbs is the only coach of the Redskins to ever win a superbowl, so the guy knows how to build a football team. All of us fans want one thing or another and think the world os going to collapse around us if that doesn't happen. At this point I'm just like make us better how ever you do it just make us better.

HAIL!!
__________________
Robert Griffin III welcome to the Washington Redskins!

Year 1 - NFC EAST Champions at 10-6

Year 2 - 3-10... Benched 14 weeks to late.....

Year 3 - Pure Awesomeness!!

http://site.fandangoracinginc.com/
artmonkforhallofamein07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:58 AM   #119
Special Teams
 
jrocx69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas
Age: 33
Posts: 461
Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

Im all down for calvin johnson, you dont see a player of this magnitude for years at a time. along with moss.... this would open up so much for the running game as well help moss big time in the intermediate routes. its ridiculous that you guys cant see that... you want campbell to work out, but you need to feed him. and calvin johnson is a lock. 6'5 230 runs a 4.35(40) and has the hands better than any wr in the NFL now.
jrocx69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 02:19 PM   #120
Impact Rookie
 
calia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Woodside, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 660
Angry Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

I have a new draft strategy. Every year from now on, let's use all of our picks to secure the highest pick we can -- in the top 3. So we get 1 pick a year. Foregoing the rest of the draft, we can then buy the most expensive old veterans in the twilight of their careers. And let's have the roster turn over a lot, to try different combinations (the whole "team" thing is overrated).

Oh -- that isn't a new strategy, that's the existing strategy. My bad.
calia is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.41461 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25