Snyder/Offseason...

JCaptMorgan12 · Post by **JCaptMorgan12** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:45 pm

I wanted to point out a few things. First, take a look at our draft history in the first round back to 1991:
Year Pick (Overall Pick)
2005 9 CARLOS ROGERS CB AUBURN
2005 25 JASON CAMPBELL QB AUBURN
2004 5 SEAN TAYLOR S MIAMI (FLA.)
2002 32 PATRICK RAMSEY QB TULANE
2001 15 ROD GARDNER WR CLEMSON
2000 2 LAVAR ARRINGTON LB PENN STATE
2000 3 CHRIS SAMUELS OT ALABAMA
1999 7 CHAMP BAILEY DB GEORGIA
1997 17 KENARD LANG DE MIAMI (FLA.)
1996 30 ANDRE JOHNSON OT PENN STATE
1995 4 MICHAEL WESTBROOK WR COLORADO
1994 3 HEATH SHULER QB TENNESSEE
1993 17 TOM CARTER DB NOTRE DAME
1992 4 DESMOND HOWARD WR MICHIGAN
1991 17 BOBBY WILSON DT MICHIGAN STATE

Now, taking a look at this, I can't see how people complain abotu Snyder & Gibbs, and the way they handled the draft. I believe Snyder bought the team Spring 1999, making his first draft apperance Spring 2000, so let's take a look from 2000 - present compared to the 10 years before. From the 10 years prior, some of those names are barely recognizeable, except for being known as flops. Westbrook had 2 or 3 ok years tops, and despite that Kenard Lang is still playing, he is not having much of an impact. As for Bailey, that was probably the best pick out of all of them, and in my mind, he is even sketchy. I mean, look what happened to him in Denver, he got burned, and that is because teams challenged their secondary, where many NFC teams didn't do that against the Redskins b/c it was easier to run against them, so Bailey was never really challenged in D.C. Personally, I would much rather have the 7 players Snyder has been around to draft in the first round rather than all those before. All the players Snyder has been around to draft in teh first round are still here, and not one first rounder from before his era is still here. Plus, there have been some steals, like Cool

ey last year.

As for not having a "splash" of an off-season, I am glad. Look where it had gotten us in years past, with a bunch of over-priced vetreans and now a salary cap mess. I refer to my baseball team this year, the Chicago White Sox. They traded their best OF, for a mediocre one, and didn't bother resigning the other. Didn't sign any high-priced free agents, but filled their needs, and the result, is they are 16-4, with the best record in the majors. I feel that it is not skill that is needed to be sucessfull, but rather players that believe in the system they are in, and want to be there. That is why I feel that there will be a decent improvement in this years team. I feel that Ramsey is ready to lead, and you can all tell that Portis is excited, as well as the offense in general I believe, Jansen sounded great on draft day. Let me know what you guys think...

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:47 pm

Well, whether we like it or not, Bailey is still considered one of the top Corners in the league.

statboy · Post by **statboy** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:49 pm

i think those two QB picks stand out. the real critcism for the beloved skins is coming to the qb pick and 2 FB picks

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:23 am

Don't forget that because of free agent movement when The Dan ny first bought the team we ended up giving away a first rounder that the Vikings used which netted them Daunte Culpepper.

I wonder if he'd have been a nice pickup for us that year ? Hmmm....

Anyone remember giving away all those picks to the Vikings for Brad Johnson.

Now that may not have been totally Danny's fault. But it still goes on his rap sheet.

kkryan · Post by **kkryan** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:37 am

thaiphoon wrote:Don't forget that because of free agent movement when The Dan ny first bought the team we ended up giving away a first rounder that the Vikings used which netted them Daunte Culpepper.

I wonder if he'd have been a nice pickup for us that year ? Hmmm....

Anyone remember giving away all those picks to the Vikings for Brad Johnson.

Now that may not have been totally Danny's fault. But it still goes on his rap sheet.

If you list negative you must list the positive...new orleans trade that netted Samuels and Arrington

SkinsFan4Life · Post by **SkinsFan4Life** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:14 pm

kkryan wrote:
thaiphoon wrote:Don't forget that because of free agent movement when The Dan ny first bought the team we ended up giving away a first rounder that the Vikings used which netted them Daunte Culpepper.

I wonder if he'd have been a nice pickup for us that year ? Hmmm....

Anyone remember giving away all those picks to the Vikings for Brad Johnson.

Now that may not have been totally Danny's fault. But it still goes on his rap sheet.
If you list negative you must list the positive...new orleans trade that netted Samuels and Arrington

thaiphoon & kkryan:

I believe the trades with the Vikings & Saints were made by Charlie Casserly ... before Danny bought the team.

gilbertarenas · Post by **gilbertarenas** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:42 pm

What about 2003 when they drafted Jacobs? Rod Gardner is not a good pick unless he does something next year. Plus draft history isn't why Snyder is criticized. he brought in Cerrato, Jeff George, and having 5 coaches since 2000 is not a good thing.

Redskins1974 · Post by **Redskins1974** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:50 pm

That's b/c Charlie Casserly was and still is overrated in a major way.

I was never a fan and was glad when we got rid of him.

Absolute Hogness · Post by **Absolute Hogness** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:26 pm

totally agree, casserly bit arse and would not have survived in dc if the free agency era had come sooner.

the draft is not the major reason for this franchise's collapse. it has more to do with snyder's inability to delineate responsibility to appropriate football men and his extremely short stature. His shortness, resulting in his irritability and fascination with big names, makes him unable to see clearly from the owner's box.

genuswine hoglover · Post by **genuswine hoglover** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:36 pm

statboy wrote:i think those two QB picks stand out. the real critcism for the beloved skins is coming to the qb pick and 2 FB picks

I think those two fullback picks were brilliant! They have the potential to solve two problems areas from last year: short yardage offense and special teams.

vtfootball07 · Post by **vtfootball07** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:41 pm

Absolute Hogness wrote:totally agree, casserly bit arse and would not have survived in dc if the free agency era had come sooner.

the draft is not the major reason for this franchise's collapse. it has more to do with snyder's inability to delineate responsibility to appropriate football men and his extremely short stature. His shortness, resulting in his irritability and fascination with big names, makes him unable to see clearly from the owner's box.

Actually, I know a VP for the company that re-did the Owner's Box when Snyder bought it. He actually had a small pedestal built for his chair to sit on so that he doesn't look as short on TV (not kidding).

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:55 pm

I think it was also so he could see and be seen! I think he's on steroids too.

Anyhoo - after all that BS, the biggest mistake was somehow getting Joe back so they (Dan & Joe) could really take everyone on a wild roller-coaster ride to the dregs of the NFL.

I am glad we have Dan Snyder and I think he's made his decisions because he thought it would make HIS team better. That is, my team! I think he will continue to "grow" as an owner and we will be a better team because of him.

cheers!

Absolute Hogness · Post by **Absolute Hogness** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:26 pm

that's the best piece of info I've learned all day.

a specially made chair, hmmm, does that make him a "special" owner?

(short people are fun)

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:04 pm

kkryan wrote:

If you list negative you must list the positive...new orleans trade that netted Samuels and Arrington

I don't doubt that that trade was good. Just that our trade to the Vikings which gave them our #12 which they used to trade to select Daunte Culpepper with.

thaiphoon & kkryan:

I believe the trades with the Vikings & Saints were made by Charlie Casserly ... before Danny bought the team.

I believe you are correct. Itr just that since this was the same offseason he bought the team, I associate it with him. Still a bad trade though

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:07 pm

thaiphoon wrote:kkryan wrote:

If you list negative you must list the positive...new orleans trade that netted Samuels and Arrington

I don't doubt that that trade was good. Just that our trade to the Vikings which gave them our #12 which they selected Daunte Culpepper with.

thaiphoon & kkryan:

I believe the trades with the Vikings & Saints were made by Charlie Casserly ... before Danny bought the team.

I believe you are correct. Itr just that since this was the same offseason he bought the team, I associate it with him. Still a bad trade though

I believe Culpepper was drafted at #11, but that's besides the point. The point is, who says we'd have taken Culpepper had we kept that pick? I think this is a bad road to go down, where you try to postulate the ramifications of every single possible pick the the nth degree. The Redskins happen to think there is more value in free agency than the draft. You may disagree with that sentiment, but that doesn't make them incapable of evaluating talent.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:22 pm

I believe Culpepper was drafted at #11, but that's besides the point.

We ended up with #5 and #12 after the previous season (thanks to Carolina). We traded #12 and a 4th rounder (if I can recall correctly) to the Vikings for Brad Johnson. After swapping our #5 to the Saints and getting their #11, we then traded our #11 and a few more picks we got from NO to move up to take Champ Bailey at #7. Had we kept #12 we would've been in a great position to draft Culpepper with it since we needed a QB

The point is, who says we'd have taken Culpepper had we kept that pick? I think this is a bad road to go down, where you try to postulate the ramifications of every single possible pick the the nth degree.

Thats the point. You guys keep saying you have to wait to see if a trade or a pick is worth it. I'm saying we can now know whether this trade was worth it and it wasn't. Brad Johnson for Daunte Culpepper was not worth it.

The Redskins happen to think there is more value in free agency than the draft.

And yet the teams that consistently win in the era of free agency do it through building through the draft.

You may disagree with that sentiment, but that doesn't make them incapable of evaluating talent.

Never said they were...I do however say they like to give away draft picks like a free clinic gives away condoms .

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:39 pm

thaiphoon wrote:
I believe Culpepper was drafted at #11, but that's besides the point.

We ended up with #5 and #12 after the previous season (thanks to Carolina). We traded #12 and a 4th rounder (if I can recall correctly) to the Vikings for Brad Johnson. After swapping our #5 to the Saints and getting their #11, we then traded our #11 and a few more picks we got from NO to move up to take Champ Bailey at #7. Had we kept #12 we would've been in a great position to draft Culpepper with it since we needed a QB

Ok, one more try to properly make my point.

We were in great position to draft Mike Williams this year, were we not? Yet, we did not. So, basically, there is absolutely no way you can say that we would've taken Culpepper at #12. Firstly, he was drafted at #11, which still may have happened even if we stayed at #12. However, we would've missed out on Champ, who played very well for us most of the time he was here. So, before working yourself and others into a circular tizzy of the idea that we could've had Culpepper, think about the fact that he was the fourth quarterback taken in 1999. Whose to say that we wouldn't have ended up with Cade McNown had we stayed at 12?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:32 pm

We were in great position to draft Mike Williams this year, were we not? Yet, we did not. So, basically, there is absolutely no way you can say that we would've taken Culpepper at #12.

When you go with with a basic need (CB was more of a need than WR in the 2005 draft) then you draft for that.

In 1999, had we not already traded our #12 for Johnson we would've been there to select Culpepper. We had the 11th pick in the first round. In addition, the Redskins had Carolina's first rounder (5th pick) after trading Sean Gilbert in the previous draft. However, the Skins dealt their original first rounder (#11) and their third rounder (as well as 2000's 2nd round pick) to the Minnesota Vikings in exchange for Brad Johnson. That left us with just one pick (#5). But we quickly made up for it with the New Orleans Ricky Williams trade. The details of the trade involved Washington trading the fifth overall pick to New Orleans for a first (#12), third (#71), fourth (#107), fifth (#144), sixth (#179) and seventh (#218) round picks. In addition, the Saints would send 2000's first and third rounders to Washington. The Redskins and the Bears then worked out a deal that would send the #7 to Washington for the Redskins first (#12), third (#71), fourth (#106), and fifth (#143) round picks, in addition to the lower of the Redskins third round picks in 2000. Then with the #7 pick we took Champ.

Had we kept the #11 pick we could've gotten both Champ AND Culpepper by trading #12 to get the #7 (and Champ) while drafting Culpepper at #11. Chicago was high on McNown and drafted him right after Minnesota drafted Culpepper

Can you see this now ??

Firstly, he was drafted at #11, which still may have happened even if we stayed at #12.

Again ... Had we kept the #12 we would've been in position to take him. Look at the events unfold again. Had we gone into the draft with the #5 and #12. Give up #5 and move to #11 and #12. We still could've traded either #11 or #12 to move to #7 and take Bailey. Chicago wasn't going to take Culpepper that year so we still could've gotten him with #12.

I understand the draft is a crap shoot. But you and others can't have it both ways in saying we have to wait to see if a draft pick or offseason move is worth it before we can criticize. I'm saying we now have 6 years in which to reflect and say that it was a bad deal and now you and others say that I can't ?? Talk about a double standard ...

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:41 pm

I'm not applying a double standard. I'm saying that you are running circles around yourself about what could'a, should'a, whould'a been 6 years ago, and that is just useless.

You have no idea how the redskins rated Culpepper, so how can you say you know they'd have drafted him? How can you say Culpepper would've developed the way he has if the Redskins had drafted him?

How many former Redskins QBs have played in the Super Bowl after leaving washington as "busts" or at the very least disappointments?

All I am saying is that there is no use in this discussion line of discussion. It has nothing to do with the team that will take the field this season, and it is entirely conjecture.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:51 pm

I'm not applying a double standard. I'm saying that you are running circles around yourself about what could'a, should'a, whould'a been 6 years ago, and that is just useless.

My point now is by using your standards of judgement we'd never judge the Redskins' offseason moves. If we judge right after the draft its - "Wait till they play". If after one season its "Well they only have had their rookie season" ... fi after 2 or 3 seasons its " He needs time to develop he'll still be good" and if we wait 6 seasons its "God that stuff is so far in the past". Same thing with draft picks and who we did and didn't pick.

You have no idea how the redskins rated Culpepper, so how can you say you know they'd have drafted him? How can you say Culpepper would've developed the way he has if the Redskins had drafted him?

And how can you assume he wouldn't have ?

How many former Redskins QBs have played in the Super Bowl after leaving washington as "busts" or at the very least disappointments?

Don't know about "busts" but 2 former QB's come to mind right away:
Humphries and Gannon.

All I am saying is that there is no use in this discussion line of discussion. It has nothing to do with the team that will take the field this season, and it is entirely conjecture.

It does if Culpepper had been drafted. He'd be our starter right now. Besides, if whiles away the time we have until training camp. What else do we have to do until then huh ??

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:26 pm

I'm sorry, there is no way you can say Culpepper would be our starter right now if we had drafted him. Who is on our team from that draft still? Certainly not our first round pick.

I'm not saying you can never evaluate a draft. But, evaluating what you think they might have wanted to do 6 years ago leads nowhere. And, evaluating a draft that is less than a week old serves no real purpose.

Tell me, what makes you think the Redskins were even considering culpepper?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:41 pm

I'm sorry, there is no way you can say Culpepper would be our starter right now if we had drafted him. Who is on our team from that draft still?

I believe Jansen is.

Certainly not our first round pick.

Nope the only one we had left we traded (plus a second rounder) for Portis.

I'm not saying you can never evaluate a draft. But, evaluating what you think they might have wanted to do 6 years ago leads nowhere. And, evaluating a draft that is less than a week old serves no real purpose.

Great ... so whenever you guys wanna stop moving the goalposts, just let me know when its ok to evaluate a draft. :roll:

Tell me, what makes you think the Redskins were even considering culpepper?

No Brad Johnson = needs a QB. They said they liked a number of QB's and Culpepper was one of them. Chicago was in love with McCown and took him right after Vikes to Daunte. We were lukewarm on him (even though we said we were high on him in pre-draft positioning). So you trade up from #11 and get Champ and Chicago takes McCown and leaves you with Culpepper. You've now drafted a shutdown corner and a QB of the future. And you've picked up a stud RT in the process as well

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:46 pm

Listen to me. I love all these hypotheticals that you are throwing out there as much as you do, but you must understand that they are worthless. What if we hypothetically drafted Culpepper, and he blew out his knee in Carlise, and never established himself as an elite QB. There are litterally millions of variables in a 6 year period that could affect what you are saying. All this hypothesis is just going nowhere.

I personally prefer to talk about something more concrete. Like, what's with all the full backs?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:08 am

When I state the hypotheticals I usually assume that injury history remains the same.

But since we've reached an impasse I'll play along ...

I personally prefer to talk about something more concrete. Like, what's with all the full backs?

I dunno... I personally thought our short yardage game last year was the result of more poor blocking than poor short yardage runners. Instead of White we could've picked up a decent WR at that pick. We'd still have Mccune and all the other picks, we'd just. But maybe they saw somethign we didn't in those guys. If they make the team they will have done it by being ST studs ...

SKINZ_DOMIN8 · Post by **SKINZ_DOMIN8** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:54 am

thaiphoon wrote:Don't forget that because of free agent movement when The Dan ny first bought the team we ended up giving away a first rounder that the Vikings used which netted them Daunte Culpepper.

I wonder if he'd have been a nice pickup for us that year ? Hmmm....

Anyone remember giving away all those picks to the Vikings for Brad Johnson.

Now that may not have been totally Danny's fault. But it still goes on his rap sheet.

Culpuke has how many superbowl rings? Moss made him good.