Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Age a factor going into 2009

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2009, 11:06 PM   #16
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 31
Posts: 8,220
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

SFREDSKIN: It's easy to deflect blame from someone such as Gibbs, but lets call a spade a spade. First, let's look at draft picks. From all accounts, Gibbs was the one running most of the front office decisions, especially when it came to free agents and trades.

We gave up tons of draft picks during the Gibbs era, and this can go on his shoulders. Honestly, I'm fine giving up draft picks for proven players. That's just me. But some trades were just silly. Such as giving Denver Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick. Etc. Vinny isn't completely free from blame -- he went after Jason Taylor this offseason and blew a few draft picks. I still think Jason Taylor will be much improved next year, but probably not worth the price. However, how can you blame Danny? He screwed up early in his career as owner, but he's not making moves anymore. The only real power he has now is as a tie breaker vote in the draft -- which means he picks between two players that Vinny/Zorn can't agree on. Also, I don't think for a second this years draft class couldn't be an excellent one. The fact that we got such a great young player in Horton already performing and some glimpses of promise from 2/3 receivers taken in the draft is a good sign. There are many more slow developing receivers in the NFL than there are rookie sensations.

I realize you, and everyone else, on this board has a man-crush on Gibbs. But he's a huge part of why this team is so old.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-11-2009, 11:17 PM   #17
Pro Bowl
 
SFREDSKIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 7,487
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
SFREDSKIN: It's easy to deflect blame from someone such as Gibbs, but lets call a spade a spade. First, let's look at draft picks. From all accounts, Gibbs was the one running most of the front office decisions, especially when it came to free agents and trades.

We gave up tons of draft picks during the Gibbs era, and this can go on his shoulders. Honestly, I'm fine giving up draft picks for proven players. That's just me. But some trades were just silly. Such as giving Denver Champ Bailey and a 2nd round pick. Etc. Vinny isn't completely free from blame -- he went after Jason Taylor this offseason and blew a few draft picks. I still think Jason Taylor will be much improved next year, but probably not worth the price. However, how can you blame Danny? He screwed up early in his career as owner, but he's not making moves anymore. The only real power he has now is as a tie breaker vote in the draft -- which means he picks between two players that Vinny/Zorn can't agree on. Also, I don't think for a second this years draft class couldn't be an excellent one. The fact that we got such a great young player in Horton already performing and some glimpses of promise from 2/3 receivers taken in the draft is a good sign. There are many more slow developing receivers in the NFL than there are rookie sensations.

I realize you, and everyone else, on this board has a man-crush on Gibbs. But he's a huge part of why this team is so old.
I believe the Portis for Bailey trade came in our favor. Bailey has missed a lot of games the last 2 years while Portis has played injured and has become and invaluable member of the team. Like I said Gibbs was brought in to win now and he inherited a mess, that's what you do when you are under the gun. The problem is that the days of being patient are gone, it's all about what have you done for me lately. Yeah, I have a man crush on Gibbs, if it wasn't for him and Beathard we would just be another shitty NFL team. He put us in the map and that's not to be forgotten, whether it was Gibbs I or II.

Redskins=Gibbs
__________________
Joe Gibbs- The best coach of all time, Lombardi trophy should be renamed Gibbs.

Art Monk- Art was like an OL playing WR, doing the dirty work and not getting the glory.

Darrell Green- Best DB ever.


Purveyor of fine Filth
SFREDSKIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2009, 11:26 PM   #18
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,917
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN View Post
I believe the Portis for Bailey trade came in our favor. Bailey has missed a lot of games the last 2 years while Portis has played injured and has become and invaluable member of the team. Like I said Gibbs was brought in to win now and he inherited a mess, that's what you do when you are under the gun. The problem is that the days of being patient are gone, it's all about what have you done for me lately. Yeah, I have a man crush on Gibbs, if it wasn't for him and Beathard we would just be another shitty NFL team. He put us in the map and that's not to be forgotten, whether it was Gibbs I or II.

Redskins=Gibbs
Thank you SF, you beat me to it.
GibbsII might have had some warts, but he brought the team back to respectabilty. We were the laughing stock of the NFL before Gibbs came back. Eventhough Gibbs did not take us back to the Superbowl, but he turned the team around and left a playoff team for Ceratto and Zorn.
Ceratto and Zorn have since taken us back out of the playoffs.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:37 AM   #19
Registered User
 
GusFrerotte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Detroit area
Posts: 4,153
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensewins View Post
Giving up a second and sixth round pick for a 34 year old DE is not helping matters.
I'll be curious to see how long Ceratto has to right the ship?
We took several steps back this year from last year. Things could get worse.
Hell yeah!!!! Still can't believe most folks want him back at a lower price. I mean he was hurt a lot of the time and only had one really stellar game at the end when the season was effectively over for us. I mean how many times do we do this shit, by acquiring old Pro Bowlers during the twilight of their careers and give up the future by giving away draft picks. Only big FAs in recent memory that panned out for us bigtime were Johnson and now Moss. Brunell was a waste even though he did get us to the playoffs once. I like JT, but he is a few years if not less from retiring. We needed those 2 picks to rebuild an aged team.
GusFrerotte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:23 AM   #20
Playmaker
 
djnemo65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,836
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

When you draft well everything takes care of itself. As Matty said, you don't get younger for the sake of getting younger. You bring in young guys and give them a chance in camp and throughout the year to supplant your veterans. When you draft well - like the Ravens or Steelers or Patriots - this just happens naturally.
djnemo65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 09:00 AM   #21
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,633
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
start drafting guys that you expect to play. not lineman like Rinehart
I agree, they need to start drafting guys that can step in and play quickly instaed of drafting guys that need 4 years to maybe or maybe not develop into players.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 11:13 AM   #22
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16,109
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
I agree, they need to start drafting guys that can step in and play quickly instaed of drafting guys that need 4 years to maybe or maybe not develop into players.
Not to defend what the team has done with the rooks (not playing them) but teams like Denver (E. Royal) and Philly (D. Jackson) had to play their rooks b/c of injuries. I don't think that situation ever materialized in our team.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:33 PM   #23
Camp Scrub
 
remarkable62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 5
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

We actually have the opportunity to address out lines in free agency and get younger. No not Haynesworth but quality blue collar inexpensive lineman are out there.
remarkable62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 01:13 PM   #24
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It is too much trouble to go and look up all of their stats for the year but I seriously believe that all of them had more catches and yards than did Kelly and Thomas added together. Then again, that would not be difficult. Let me review the facts for you:

Malcom Kelly: 5 games 3 catches 18 yards 0 TDs (Long gain = 7 yards)

Devin Thomas:16 games 15 catches 120 yards 0 TDs


Please note that Devin Thomas was active for every game and got on the field in every game. Now look at those stats again. Depressing...


Now looking at those numbers - and working on the assumption that the coaches didn't keep these players off the field in order to try to lose games - tell me which of the following is most likely correct:

1. Neither of these guys is not as good as the five rookie WRs I listed above. If that is the case, why did we pick these two so high? Who thought they were better WRs?


2. Both of these guys suffered from having to learn a new system. Really, which of the players I named above played in "the same system" in college? So, are these two guys "not as bright" as the five rookie WRs I listed above?

No one conspired to keep Kelly or Thomas on the sidelines this year. Zorn said they both showed up for camp "unprepared"; Kelly reinjured his knee and dropped passes that hit him in the hands during the season; Thomas scored a TD on a reverse one day. That is the succinct version of their rookie seasons...


Here is another fact to consider. The FO obviously thought that improving the WR corps and the pass-catching cadre was an important thing to do between the 2007 and the 2008 season. That's why they spent the 3 top draft picks on pass-catchers. Nevertheless, neither Thomas nor Kelly could manage to replace the same 3 guys who were deemed to need upgrading at the end of 2007. It sure looked to me like Moss, Randle-El and Thrash got the snaps in 08 just like they did in 07.


Might Kelly/Thomas develop? Sure they might. But don't delude yourself into believing that all they need is an injury to a starter to show the world what stud wide receivers they are. If they had shown anything near that ability in practice - - from July through December - - they would have been on the field a lot more.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 01:20 PM   #25
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,633
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon View Post
Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.

It is too much trouble to go and look up all of their stats for the year but I seriously believe that all of them had more catches and yards than did Kelly and Thomas added together. Then again, that would not be difficult. Let me review the facts for you:

Malcom Kelly: 5 games 3 catches 18 yards 0 TDs (Long gain = 7 yards)

Devin Thomas:16 games 15 catches 120 yards 0 TDs


Please note that Devin Thomas was active for every game and got on the field in every game. Now look at those stats again. Depressing...


Now looking at those numbers - and working on the assumption that the coaches didn't keep these players off the field in order to try to lose games - tell me which of the following is most likely correct:

1. Neither of these guys is not as good as the five rookie WRs I listed above. If that is the case, why did we pick these two so high? Who thought they were better WRs?


2. Both of these guys suffered from having to learn a new system. Really, which of the players I named above played in "the same system" in college? So, are these two guys "not as bright" as the five rookie WRs I listed above?

No one conspired to keep Kelly or Thomas on the sidelines this year. Zorn said they both showed up for camp "unprepared"; Kelly reinjured his knee and dropped passes that hit him in the hands during the season; Thomas scored a TD on a reverse one day. That is the succinct version of their rookie seasons...


Here is another fact to consider. The FO obviously thought that improving the WR corps and the pass-catching cadre was an important thing to do between the 2007 and the 2008 season. That's why they spent the 3 top draft picks on pass-catchers. Nevertheless, neither Thomas nor Kelly could manage to replace the same 3 guys who were deemed to need upgrading at the end of 2007. It sure looked to me like Moss, Randle-El and Thrash got the snaps in 08 just like they did in 07.


Might Kelly/Thomas develop? Sure they might. But don't delude yourself into believing that all they need is an injury to a starter to show the world what stud wide receivers they are. If they had shown anything near that ability in practice - - from July through December - - they would have been on the field a lot more.
That's the Redskins mentality when it comes to draft picks starting. They never seem to believe a rookie can just come in and start, but rather there has to be an injury are some other reason to "force" the rookie into playing.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:00 PM   #26
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,741
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

People who keep clamoring for Jackson and Royal, ask yourselves this? Would you have been all gung-ho in April if we drafted a 5'10" receiver when we already have two?
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:31 PM   #27
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,920
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by irish View Post
That's the Redskins mentality when it comes to draft picks starting. They never seem to believe a rookie can just come in and start, but rather there has to be an injury are some other reason to "force" the rookie into playing.
I think in recent years Cooley, Rogers, Taylor, Landry all disproved that, didn't they? Maybe we're just not drafting players who are better than those they've been drafted to replace.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 05:01 PM   #28
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16,109
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon View Post
Ruhskins:

You can delude yourself into believing that the only reason Eddie Royal and Desean Jackson - - and Jordy Nelson and Donnie Avery and Davone Bess - - made contributions to their teams at WR this year was due to injuries that forced them in the lineup. Actually, those guys played their way onto the field for their teams.
It's not the only reason, but it is a major reason why these guys got to play. You don't think that if ARE and Moss had gone down with injuries, the team would have been forced to play at least Thomas? Well actually, the way our team is they would have traded picks for a WR.

We have two good examples here in our team of rookie players who were thrown into starting lineups b/c of injuries: Horton and Heyer. Horton showed flashes of being a good player during the preseason, but had Reed Doughty played a bit better and/or if he had not gotten injured, Horton would not have played much at all. The same with Horton, who was thrown into the lineup due to injuries to Jensen and Samuels

My point is that our situation in Washington was different. If you think that we needed some good play out rookie receivers right away, then the team should have gone after an experienced receiver in free agency instead of drafting them. The rooks are a hit or miss, you are only going to get a few Desean Jacksons or Eddie Royals who contribute a lot during their rookie year. On the other hand you are going to get a whole bunch of rooks that do not contribute much and need to develop.

Once again, I don't disagree with the rookies' lack of playing time, but I don't think they were in a situation as Royal or Jackson were to be forced to play more.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:42 PM   #29
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

Smootsmack:

I do not now - nor would I last Spring - have worried even a little bit about the height of any receiver that the Skins drafted. There are good big receivers and there are good small recievers. AND there are big receivers who aren't worth the space they take up.

Darnarian McCants? Big guy. Used to be here. Glad he's gone

Anthony Mix? Big guy. Used to be here. Which starting NFL line-up did he make?

What was his real name now - I can't recall - but people used to call him 50/50 when he was here...? Rod Something or other. Where's he now?

Productive wide receivers are guys who get open and who catch the ball when it is thrown to them such that they can get their hands on it without resorting to circus-like acrobatics. It really doesn't matter how big they are.

But if BIG is essential, then why not Jordy Nelson as a big receiver? Maybe he's not AS big as Malcom Kelly, but he played and caught the ball this year (33 catches/366 yards/2 TDs). Malcom Kelly caught THREE passes all year. Big or small or medium sized makes no difference; a receiver who catches THREE passes for the season is not much of a return for a 1st day draft pick.


Ruhskins:


You seem to cling to the idea that the starting tandem of Moss, Randle-El and Thrash is something that strikes fear in the hearts of defensive coordinators around the NFL. Sadly, it does not.

Sure, if one of the starters had gone on IR, the "kiddies" would have played more. But the fact that the "kiddies" could not/did not beat out anyone on a mediocre batch of WRs says that they didn't show very much in practice. And we do know - - the numbers don't lie in this circumstance - - that when they did get on the field it was about the same as having the offense play with 10 men.

Imagine for a moment that the Redskins signed ONE WR as a free agent who had caught 18 passes last year for 138 yards and no TDs. Who would think that was a "prize catch"? Well ... that is what the Redskins got from BOTH of their first day draft picks at WR. Not one reciever - - BOTH of them added together.

Rookie WRs are hit and miss - - as can be said of many other positions too. But I gave you examples of 5 rookie WRs in the NFL this year all of whom did better than Thomas and Kelly added together. Some started all year; some started part of the year; some were used in lots of special offensive packages. But all five contributred individually more to their teams than both of these guys contributed to the Redskins.

So, who in the scouting department/draft organizing department/draft day war room passed on Desean Jackson, Donnie Avery, Eddie Royal, Jordy Nelson and Davone Best thinking that Thomas and Kelly were higher on the list? I don't have an office at Redskins Park so I don't know the answer to that, but whoever it was should not have gotten a Christmas bonus this year.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 08:51 PM   #30
Playmaker
 
djnemo65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MA
Age: 33
Posts: 2,836
Re: Age a factor going into 2009

You can criticize the Fred Davis pick and even the Kelly pick (for attitude and health issues respectively, both of which ended up severely hurting their rookie seasons) but D. Thomas was by far the consensus number one receiver going into the draft. Indeed, most pundits thought it was wacky that St. Louis took Avery at 33 over Thomas. Kudos to them for making a great call, but you can't fault the skins for filling a need and taking the consensus number one player at his position who had slipped all the way to 34.

Moreover, I don't have a great memory but I don't remember a lot of people last year lamenting us taking Thomas over Eddie Royal on draft day.
djnemo65 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 04:19 PM.


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 0.38771 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