Draft Contest, What Would You Have Done?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

In Case you didn't notice we couldn't run the ball last year,

Clinton Portis had over 1,300 yards last year and Betts wasn't too shabby when he came in?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Clinton Portis had over 1,300 yards last year and Betts wasn't too shabby when he came in?

1 yard at a time, we couldn't get to the line of scrimmage on short yardage plays.

I do think Betts ran harder than Portis though. Portis is not built to run between the tackles he needs a trapping style offense.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

1 yard at a time, we couldn't get to the line of scrimmage on short yardage plays.

I do think Betts ran harder than Portis though. Portis is not built to run between the tackles he needs a trapping style offense.

Still, Portis gained over 1300 yards rushing and we all know that wasn't because we only ran him in zone blocking run plays...

The short yardage plays are the reason why we DRAFTED A BIG GUY!!!! Even in the 80's and 90's, Gibbs had his big backs that came in to gain those tough yards....this draft shows that Gibbs' philosophy hasn't changed.

[itvnetop]

#9 Mike Williams
#25 Marlin Jackson (you look at how he fared at Michigan and i have no doubt he would have been fine in GW's system)

[ArringtonRules]

#9 Carlos Rogers (we needed a top CB) though I must admit passing on Mike Williams at this position is really hard
#25 Whichever top DE or DL was available

Originally Posted by itvnetop

#9 Mike Williams
#25 Marlin Jackson (you look at how he fared at Michigan and i have no doubt he would have been fine in GW's system)

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

#9 Mike Williams
#25 Marlin Jackson (you look at how he fared at Michigan and i have no doubt he would have been fine in GW's system)

I like that

[Big C]

1st round 9 pick- Carlos Rogers, i have no problem with this pick at all, didnt need the big names
1st round 25- no1 here i would have traded future 1st rounder for...but either Heath Miller or Chris Spencer, to play guard. Bugel could probably make a monster out of him
4th round- Stefan Lefors, to groom as a solid backup. incredibly accurate, just short really and not a huge arm
5th round- Larry Brackens, huge WR as a project
6th round- Jovan Haye, solid DE id seen goin as high as the 3rd round
7th round- Broughton is a good pick i think as the goal line back

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I still would have liked to see the Skins take Rod Flowers. He could be the next Antonio Gates. I'm sure they could still sign him to the practice squad.

[RedskinsJunkie]

I would have loved M. Williams and taken a Corner with the 25th pick. They could have gotten the same value with Adrian MCPherson in the 5th round than they will get with Campbell in the first.

[drew54]

Originally Posted by RedskinsJunkie

I would have loved M. Williams and taken a Corner with the 25th pick. They could have gotten the same value with Adrian MCPherson in the 5th round than they will get with Campbell in the first.

Agreed, but he is not a Character player. And blame Sean Taylor, but I think Gibbs will never draft another "U" type ME first player.

[RedskinsJunkie]

Originally Posted by drew54

Agreed, but he is not a Character player. And blame Sean Taylor, but I think Gibbs will never draft another "U" type ME first player.

I know he had some issues in the past, but this is past the times of Bosic, Monk, Green, Etc... I think the guy has been very humble and he played well in Arena. I love the Mccunes pick too. I really think they needed to go WR Mike Williams with number 9 or like you said trade back and at least get Roddy White and a D lineman...

[Daseal]

Still, Portis gained over 1300 yards rushing and we all know that wasn't because we only ran him in zone blocking run plays...

He also touched the ball more than most other backs in the league and had a rather stingy 3.8 yards a carry. That was running in a poor offensive scheme, if we let him touch the ball that many times and actually let him play how he feels comfortable it may not matter if they stack the box!

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

He also touched the ball more than most other backs in the league and had a rather stingy 3.8 yards a carry. That was running in a poor offensive scheme, if we let him touch the ball that many times and actually let him play how he feels comfortable it may not matter if they stack the box!

Well, first of all, it wasn't a poor offensive scheme. Secondly, if Portis is unhappy with how much he's going to be used (which sounds kind of stupid in my opinion), then he doesn't belong in Washington. This scheme relies on a run first approach and run often in order to control the ball and the clock. If this was actually a poor scheme, then Gibbs would have never been successful in his first tenure - and the excuse that football was different back then is hog wash.

Our offensive line had alot to do with Portis not gaining 10+ yards per carry.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Well, first of all, it wasn't a poor offensive scheme. Secondly, if Portis is unhappy with how much he's going to be used (which sounds kind of stupid in my opinion), then he doesn't belong in Washington. This scheme relies on a run first approach and run often in order to control the ball and the clock. If this was actually a poor scheme, then Gibbs would have never been successful in his first tenure - and the excuse that football was different back then is hog wash.

Our offensive line had alot to do with Portis not gaining 10+ yards per carry.

That's been the point why bring in a back like Portis when he clearly doesn't fit the scheme.

Now controlling the clock with the run is not a scheme, how you control it with the run is, and what I mean by that is what kind of a running game do we use, if it's a power running game then why bring in Portis? If it's a finess running game then why not do it.

Our line wasen't as bad as it was made out to be, I prefer to listen to Portis who has some experience running in that offense when he say's the other team's know where we are running the ball, couple that with opposing defenses stating that they knew where the plays were going, that the play's we ran were very simplistic, and easy to diagnois, I say that's an indictment on gibbs not the line, granted that our line was not great but not nearly as bad as they looked. I don't care how good your line is if you can't throw it enough to keep a defense honest you wont be able to run the ball, and we didn't come close to keeping the defenses honest.

I believe you said we had no need for a center/guard in the draft, yet blame the line for our running problems last year, and after seeing what you percieve to be a shabby line you wouldn't want to take the steps neccassary to add depth so if we have an injury we aren't strapped with a line that can't block?


I think the perception by some is that Gibb's used his big back's primarly on short yardage play's, well not so, he used them as his primary back, and used the speed guy's ala J.Washington, K.Bryant, and so on, on passing downs.

As for Football being different back in Gibbs first tenure? Yes, and no, What daseal is saying is Gibbs isn't running the team like he did back in the day, that's where the problem lies, yes with free agency, salary cap, clock management, things are different, but so is Gibbs, there is also something different about Gibbs now that wasen't back in the 80's, he had Bobby Beathard to bring in the players for him to succeed, I can tell you this Beathard found Schroeder in the 3rd, and Rypien, and Humphries in the 6th rd. About the same area we should have found Campbell.

Beathard left the Skins because he was fed up fighting with gibbs on personell, and I will give the trade that did it, it was the Gerald riggs for our #1, in which Beathard was going to use to draft Icky Woods, he allowed Gibbs to have his way and then left, his exact words "well Joe got his RB".

Gibbs of the past is gone he now has to reprove himself again, as he would be the first to agree, and after our abismal offensive effort last season he has a lot to prove.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

That's been the point why bring in a back like Portis when he clearly doesn't fit the scheme.

Now controlling the clock with the run is not a scheme, how you control it with the run is, and what I mean by that is what kind of a running game do we use, if it's a power running game then why bring in Portis? If it's a finess running game then why not do it.

Our line wasen't as bad as it was made out to be, I prefer to listen to Portis who has some experience running in that offense when he say's the other team's know where we are running the ball, couple that with opposing defenses stating that they knew where the plays were going, that the play's we ran were very simplistic, and easy to diagnois, I say that's an indictment on gibbs not the line, granted that our line was not great but not nearly as bad as they looked. I don't care how good your line is if you can't throw it enough to keep a defense honest you wont be able to run the ball, and we didn't come close to keeping the defenses honest.

I believe you said we had no need for a center/guard in the draft, yet blame the line for our running problems last year, and after seeing what you percieve to be a shabby line you wouldn't want to take the steps neccassary to add depth so if we have an injury we aren't strapped with a line that can't block?


I think the perception by some is that Gibb's used his big back's primarly on short yardage play's, well not so, he used them as his primary back, and used the speed guy's ala J.Washington, K.Bryant, and so on, on passing downs.

As for Football being different back in Gibbs first tenure? Yes, and no, What daseal is saying is Gibbs isn't running the team like he did back in the day, that's where the problem lies, yes with free agency, salary cap, clock management, things are different, but so is Gibbs, there is also something different about Gibbs now that wasen't back in the 80's, he had Bobby Beathard to bring in the players for him to succeed, I can tell you this Beathard found Schroeder in the 3rd, and Rypien, and Humphries in the 6th rd. About the same area we should have found Campbell.

Beathard left the Skins because he was fed up fighting with gibbs on personell, and I will give the trade that did it, it was the Gerald riggs for our #1, in which Beathard was going to use to draft Icky Woods, he allowed Gibbs to have his way and then left, his exact words "well Joe got his RB".

Gibbs of the past is gone he now has to reprove himself again, as he would be the first to agree, and after our abismal offensive effort last season he has a lot to prove.

Okay, lets get a few things straight, Offiss. I think you're going on alot of assumptions of what I'm saying, instead of actually fact of what I am saying. First of all, I never suggested we didn't need to use the draft or free agency to get a linemen....especially center. Just because I didn't state we needed to use either avenue to upgrade our OL, doesn't mean I don't believe we needed it. Heck, if we used our top two picks for the OL, that would have been fine with me.

Secondly, I never suggested we ONLY used the big running backs for short yardage downs, but 9 times out of 10, the big backs were in the lineup for the short yardage plays. That does not mean I am suggesting that these backs were not primary backs. I'm not neccessarily disputing that Joe Washington was used on third downs....I'm not disputing that John Riggins was a primary back. I know this stuff Offiss, I WATCHED THE GAMES!

What I am saying is, by US drafting big guys in THIS DRAFT, it gives us a BIG GUY to pick up the SHORT YARDAGE that PORTIS didn't do so well on this past year. That is ALL I am really trying to say about the big backs Offiss...instead you're pointlessly arguing about how John Riggins was used...an arugment I didn't start.

As for Portis, I brought up him gaining 1300+ yards this season because you basically were saying he wasn't effective...only gaining one yard per carry. I'm trying to look at this from a logical stand point..and for the record, I haven't offered my opinion on Portis as a system back or not, but only pointing out the obviously logical fact. That fact is, for a running back to gain over a 1,000 yards rushing to be considered not so effective isn't logical. Portis would have more than likely had another 1500 yard season if not for his injury. I would say with numbers like that, he had a heck of a year for being a Denver system back, wouldn't you agree?

Now, I don't feel Portis is the best fit in Gibbs' system....but for a back not being the best fit, he didn't do so bad in the system. The numbers don't lie. I have stated in the past that if I could choose between Portis and a healthy Stephen Davis; I would pick Davis. The reason why is that I felt Davis was more of a "Gibbs" type of back than what Portis is. Now, I'm not getting into an argument of Davis nowadays, but merely giving an example of what type of back I believe works best in Gibbs system. That IS NOT to say, though, I think Portis won't be successful in Washington.

Finally, the argument about the offensive line. Our protection was no where near what Gibbs and Bugel wanted it to be. It WAS alot better than the previous year, but nothing like what I believe the expectations are according to the coaching staff. We had Jansen out for the entire season - our best offensive linemen. Samuels had an okay year but not a pro bowl year. As the season progressed, the protection got better, but it wasn't anywhere where it should have been. I do believe we needed to upgrade the center...and hopefully we did that. Seeing him play will tell the tale. We're getting Jansen back and if Samuels can have better than a so-so year, the offensive line will play better this year. So, to address the line in conjunction to the thoughts on the running game, the OL wasn't always opening up big holes. Sure, defenses not respecting our passing game and putting people up on the line played a part in our running game, but to say our offensive line had zero to do with it was pure bunk. Now, I am NOT putting all the blame on the offensive line....don't even argue that point.

BTW, speaking about the running game in the 1980's...and the early 90's, our running game did switch to the smaller backs being featured...such as Timmy Smith and Earnest Byner. Maybe that contributed to the fact that Riggs and Rogers were not the John Riggins of football. My simple point in stating this is, Gibbs was just as successful with having the smaller backs used as primary backs as he was with the big backs. A prime example is our Super Bowl season of '91.