As a Gibbs loyalist, it pains me to ask...

[riggofan]

I disagree that it's too early to label the draft any kind of success.

It's true that we don't know exactly how the players will perform, but based on value perceived at the time, and how we accrued picks throughout the draft you can say it's successful, and encouraging for the future.

Ok so we had a successful draft based on Mel Kiper's predraft grades. Woo-hoo.

You can't possibly be serious about this. If our first three picks are out of the league by 2010 are you still going to argue that it was a successful draft?

It might be the best draft for the Redskins ever, but you have to judge this two or three years down the road and see how your picks panned out. Success by any other standards is completely meaningless.

[VetSkinsFan]

Another problem with the JG 2.0 era was that he didn't have full control of the offense b/c of his high powered offensive coordinator. He wanted to hand over the reigns, but couldn't let go. That was another issue in itself) OT from the original post, but relavent to where the discussion went).

That simply is not true. Gibbs had as close to full control of the offense as he wanted, Saunders was not "high powered" in that coaching hierarchy

My point was that Gibbs wasn't calling the shots. He brought in an established O-coord so JG could handle the coaching duties. If he had brought in a no-name, I think it would have been different. Gibbs never let Saunders call all the plays; he said so himself.

[RayNAustin]

Could Gibbs have been part of the front office problems some of these past years?

Joe Gibbs never met a veteran he would cut or a draft pick he wouldn't trade for a veteran. Any true Redskins fan thinks the world of Joe Gibbs. And Dan Snyder, if nothing else, is a true Redskins fan. So, if Gibbs said he wanted anything, Snyder would not only have listened but would have said, "How high would you like me to jump?" I think we know Dan Snyder jumps for no one else. Gibbs is an excellent coach and a better man. But he is not now, nor has he ever been a personnel expert. Without Bobby Beathard, there would have been no Hogs, no Fun Bunch, no Posse, no Darrell Green.

In my opinion, the error by the front office was in bringing back the majority of the Gibbs coaching staff from the glory days, but overlooking the front office staff from the glory days. Both parts were equally important to the Washington Redskins that Dan Snyder remembers and was trying to recreate.

True....100% on the money. Beathard built the great Redskin teams of the past, and he did the same thing with three other teams.

In reality, personnel was a weakness for J. Gibbs in my opinion. A little known or at least little talked about fact was that when Gibbs first came in, he did not want Joe Theisman or John Riggins....obviously that would have been a huge mistake. He also didn't want D. Green.

Gibbs II, without Beathard was a failure personnel wise. Sure, you can point to good personnel moves, but for every good one there were bad ones, even horrible one's that negated them. And some of the bad ones were particularly, historically terrible.

Sometimes draft picks can be a total bust, and it's a no fault situation that looked good on paper but just didn't pan out. That happens to the best GM's now and then. Other times those picks can be bad management when you trade or pay too much to pick a player that doesn't work out. Then there are the horrendous moves that that should never happen that involve a free agent where you pay too much, or the player doesn't perform or both. From a performance standpoint, you should be close to 100% on free agents, with health being the only non controllable variable, but there are multiple instances of the latter during Gibbs II, and you'll never be able to measure the true impact of these errors.

Adam Archuletta was about as bad a personnel move as the Redskins have ever made, EVER. It was the kind of move people get fired for. It was a tripple whammy....we let a better and cheaper player (Ryan Clark) leave.....gave AA an astronomical contract....and he SUCKED and lost his starting job twice...once to his backup, and then to his backup's backup. It can't get any worse than that, and it was inexcuseable. I can't help but wonder what Gregg Williams involvement was in that and whether that was a factor in cutting him loose.

I won't list all of the bad moves, but I count about a dozen in 4 years, and that wouldn't get anyone a passing grade.

[riggofan]

btw I love this bit in Jenkins' article today:

Last season, ESPN's Mel Kiper gave the New York Giants a C-minus for their 2007 draft class. It proved to be a stupendous class, as seven rookies made key on-field contributions in their Super Bowl title run.

[BnGhog]

I disagree that it's too early to label the draft any kind of success.

It's true that we don't know exactly how the players will perform, but based on value perceived at the time, and how we accrued picks throughout the draft you can say it's successful, and encouraging for the future.

Ok so we had a successful draft based on Mel Kiper's predraft grades. Woo-hoo.

You can't possibly be serious about this. If our first three picks are out of the league by 2010 are you still going to argue that it was a successful draft?

It might be the best draft for the Redskins ever, but you have to judge this two or three years down the road and see how your picks panned out. Success by any other standards is completely meaningless.

IMO you can't look at it that way. Hind sight is ALWAYS 20/20. Waiting 2 years then saying those draft picks sucked. What good is that? According to that, every team had a bad draft back when Tom Brady was taken in the sixth round and all other 31 teams passed on him. Wow, that was really bad of our front office to pass to Tom Brady that year, that was a horrible decision by them.


Right now as of today and until the start of the season, It was the best draft we have had in a long, LONG time. We have 9 picks that alone is better than we have done in the last ten years.

What these picks turn out to be, is nothing more than an educated guess, and any 6 rounder that turns out to be a HOF QB like Tom Brady, is nothing more than luck. And no matter how you look at it, hind sight is 20/20. Right now, we can go back and look up the picks from 2005 and say what we should have done, whats the point? We have to move forward not backward to make this a better team.

[BnGhog]

That's fine, but why trade for him? He was going to be cut by the Jags anyway. We could've signed Brunell as a free agent and then still drafted Schaub and had him sit and learn for a year or two.

And there really wasn't all that much stability with Brunell. He was replaced mid-season twice during his tenure here. He only played a full season once.

You don't know he would have been cut by the Jags. Thats only speculation and rumers.

And its not like Schaub is the second comming of Joe Mantana or anything. Did the Texans even make it to the playoffs I can't remember?

Besides it that happened we wouldn't have gotten JC and I happen to like JC.

[RayNAustin]

I disagree that it's too early to label the draft any kind of success.

It's true that we don't know exactly how the players will perform, but based on value perceived at the time, and how we accrued picks throughout the draft you can say it's successful, and encouraging for the future.

Ok so we had a successful draft based on Mel Kiper's predraft grades. Woo-hoo.

You can't possibly be serious about this. If our first three picks are out of the league by 2010 are you still going to argue that it was a successful draft?

It might be the best draft for the Redskins ever, but you have to judge this two or three years down the road and see how your picks panned out. Success by any other standards is completely meaningless.

IMO you can't look at it that way. Hind sight is ALWAYS 20/20. Waiting 2 years then saying those draft picks sucked. What good is that? According to that, every team had a bad draft back when Tom Brady was taken in the sixth round and all other 31 teams passed on him. Wow, that was really bad of our front office to pass to Tom Brady that year, that was a horrible decision by them.


Right now as of today and until the start of the season, It was the best draft we have had in a long, LONG time. We have 9 picks that alone is better than we have done in the last ten years.

What these picks turn out to be, is nothing more than an educated guess, and any 6 rounder that turns out to be a HOF QB like Tom Brady, is nothing more than luck. And no matter how you look at it, hind sight is 20/20. Right now, we can go back and look up the picks from 2005 and say what we should have done, whats the point? We have to move forward not backward to make this a better team.

Yes hindsight is 20/20 and that is the point. Until those pick have had a chance to perform and produce, their potential is just that, potential. Two years down the road, speculation can then be replaced by results or lack thereof.

The number of picks has NOTHING to do with whether the draft was successful or not

You could have 20 picks, and if none of them become star players or every down starters....was it a successful draft? Measure that by a team who has 6 picks and three become stars.

With draft picks, it is pure speculation as to how they will perform at the NFL level. Only time will tell.

If Thomas and Kelly become solid starters....very good draft....if they turn out to be Desmond Howard and Michael Westbrook...a lousy draft.

[BnGhog]

True....100% on the money. Beathard built the great Redskin teams of the past, and he did the same thing with three other teams.

In reality, personnel was a weakness for J. Gibbs in my opinion. A little known or at least little talked about fact was that when Gibbs first came in, he did not want Joe Theisman or John Riggins....obviously that would have been a huge mistake. He also didn't want D. Green.

Gibbs II, without Beathard was a failure personnel wise. Sure, you can point to good personnel moves, but for every good one there were bad ones, even horrible one's that negated them. And some of the bad ones were particularly, historically terrible.

Sometimes draft picks can be a total bust, and it's a no fault situation that looked good on paper but just didn't pan out. That happens to the best GM's now and then. Other times those picks can be bad management when you trade or pay too much to pick a player that doesn't work out. Then there are the horrendous moves that that should never happen that involve a free agent where you pay too much, or the player doesn't perform or both. From a performance standpoint, you should be close to 100% on free agents, with health being the only non controllable variable, but there are multiple instances of the latter during Gibbs II, and you'll never be able to measure the true impact of these errors.

Adam Archuletta was about as bad a personnel move as the Redskins have ever made, EVER. It was the kind of move people get fired for. It was a tripple whammy....we let a better and cheaper player (Ryan Clark) leave.....gave AA an astronomical contract....and he SUCKED and lost his starting job twice...once to his backup, and then to his backup's backup. It can't get any worse than that, and it was inexcuseable. I can't help but wonder what Gregg Williams involvement was in that and whether that was a factor in cutting him loose.

I won't list all of the bad moves, but I count about a dozen in 4 years, and that wouldn't get anyone a passing grade.

I think tooooo much emphasis has been put on the bad moves. Every team has bad moves. Like the AA move. But it you really break it down into what was suppose to be at the time.... He was, is and never will be a cover guy. He was brought in for more run support. Tayler by himself could play center fielder and cover. But AA ended up being used to cover. If had been used correctly he simply would have been ok and would have been a little over paid. But sense he wasn't and it didn't work out ( here is that hind site is 20/20 thing agian) it was a very bad move.

Peaple always remember your bad moves and not the good ones. They have to have a 53 man roster every year. You state you can think of a dozen off the top of your head in 4 years. Thats 12 bad moves out of a 53 man roster times 4 years that's 212 decisions that had to be made weather to keep, trade, draft, or cut. That's what like 6% was bad moves. That's 94% good moves. I would say that is a passing grade.

[CanesSkins26]

You don't know he would have been cut by the Jags. Thats only speculation and rumers.

From a 2004 article....

Brunell had one year left on his contract and was due to count $10.5 million against the salary cap this year -- including a $2 million bonus due next month. The Jaguars were expected to cut him before paying the bonus, but the Redskins pre-empted the move by expressing interest in a trade.

No way was Jacksonville going to give Brunell a $2 million roster bonus to just sit on the bench.

[skinsfan#33]

Gibbs never let Saunders call all the plays; he said so himself.

Not true! If you think it is, provide a link.

I can remember him saying on more than one accation that Saunders called the plays and they discuseed what to do in the red zone. Gibbs was the HC and AS the OC. It isn't uncommon for a HC to influence the play calls in important situatuions.

[BnGhog]

I disagree that it's too early to label the draft any kind of success.

It's true that we don't know exactly how the players will perform, but based on value perceived at the time, and how we accrued picks throughout the draft you can say it's successful, and encouraging for the future.

Ok so we had a successful draft based on Mel Kiper's predraft grades. Woo-hoo.

You can't possibly be serious about this. If our first three picks are out of the league by 2010 are you still going to argue that it was a successful draft?

It might be the best draft for the Redskins ever, but you have to judge this two or three years down the road and see how your picks panned out. Success by any other standards is completely meaningless.

IMO you can't look at it that way. Hind sight is ALWAYS 20/20. Waiting 2 years then saying those draft picks sucked. What good is that? According to that, every team had a bad draft back when Tom Brady was taken in the sixth round and all other 31 teams passed on him. Wow, that was really bad of our front office to pass to Tom Brady that year, that was a horrible decision by them.


Right now as of today and until the start of the season, It was the best draft we have had in a long, LONG time. We have 9 picks that alone is better than we have done in the last ten years.

What these picks turn out to be, is nothing more than an educated guess, and any 6 rounder that turns out to be a HOF QB like Tom Brady, is nothing more than luck. And no matter how you look at it, hind sight is 20/20. Right now, we can go back and look up the picks from 2005 and say what we should have done, whats the point? We have to move forward not backward to make this a better team.

Yes hindsight is 20/20 and that is the point. Until those pick have had a chance to perform and produce, their potential is just that, potential. Two years down the road, speculation can then be replaced by results or lack thereof.

The number of picks has NOTHING to do with whether the draft was successful or not

You could have 20 picks, and if none of them become star players or every down starters....was it a successful draft? Measure that by a team who has 6 picks and three become stars.

With draft picks, it is pure speculation as to how they will perform at the NFL level. Only time will tell.

If Thomas and Kelly become solid starters....very good draft....if they turn out to be Desmond Howard and Michael Westbrook...a lousy draft.

To me there are so many factors that go toward making him a NFL starter between now and then, that you can't judge Vinnys sucess by how well the draft pick does years later. You are using future info, that we didn't have at the time of the draft.

So if Kelly has great potential, and his knee does blow out at camp, and is is never able to become a starter. You saying that is Vinnys lack of picking talent? That is no way to judge how well Vinny and the FO did there job.

Or what if our coaches can't teach him, like he needs to be? Then, he gets bought by another team in FA and they teach him, and he becomes a star, is that too, Vinnys lack of picking talent?



That is the type of info Vinny did not have at the time of the draft, but this is info you will use judge him a year or two down the road.

With the knowlege he had at the time of the draft, he did a good job. You can only take that away by using hind sight. And if you do that and bash him for that, then you will have to bash every other teams FO's for the same mistake.

It is rare for every pick a team makes in one draft to become stars, it just don't happen. All Im saying is that its not fair to him to bash him or being prepaird to bash him when some of these picks don't work out. Some will work out and some won't and its not always the talent scouts doing a bad job, sometime these guys just don't have what it takes. And a lot of times there is no way to tell. Because it is common knowledge that a lot of college players won't make the cut and that is true with any team in the NFL, not just the Skins and their picks.

Ok, Ok if none of his picks make the team, you could say this draft was unsuccessful, but I don't think that will happen.

If only 4 of these guys make the team I'd still think its pretty sucessfull because MOST college players don't have what it takes. That's why its the pros, you have to be elite to make the team.

[CanesSkins26]

Gibbs never let Saunders call all the plays; he said so himself.

Not true! If you think it is, provide a link.

I can remember him saying on more than one accation that Saunders called the plays and they discuseed what to do in the red zone. Gibbs was the HC and AS the OC. It isn't uncommon for a HC to influence the play calls in important situatuions.

No matter who called the plays, it was obvious that Gibbs and Saunders didn't mesh in terms of what they wanted to do. Instead of having a Gibbs offense or a Saunders offense, we saw an ineffective combination of both of their offenses. Portis has talked about how Gibbs ran the running game and Saunders the passing game in terms of game planning. Gibbs himself has said that he played a large roll in determining what plays to run inside the 20, and I'll have to go back and check but I believe that I read in an article that it was actually Gibbs that called the plays on that goal line stand in the loss to the Giants this season. Gibbs should either have never hired Saunders or given him 100% control over the offense.

[BnGhog]

You don't know he would have been cut by the Jags. Thats only speculation and rumers.

From a 2004 article....

Brunell had one year left on his contract and was due to count $10.5 million against the salary cap this year -- including a $2 million bonus due next month. The Jaguars were expected to cut him before paying the bonus, but the Redskins pre-empted the move by expressing interest in a trade.

No way was Jacksonville going to give Brunell a $2 million roster bonus to just sit on the bench.

Thats still speculation and Media. The Jags never made a statement they would cut him. If they just cut him, they would still have to pay his contract numbers, he was not a FA.

Washington's lucrative offer to Brunell was made by Redskins contract negotiator Eric Schaffer to Steinberg during a meeting this week at Steinberg's offices in Newport Beach, Calif., the league source said. Talks between the Redskins, Brunell's agent and the Jaguars have advanced so far this week that other teams that called Jacksonville about acquiring the veteran passer now appear to be backing off on that interest.

Unwilling to part with the Jaguars' asking price of their first-round pick (20th overall), the Miami Dolphins have all but conceded Brunell to the Redskins, the league source said. San Diego general manager A.J. Smith, meanwhile, said Wednesday that the Chargers like Brunell but remain undecided about making a trade proposal for him. Smith added that he considers the Redskins the leading candidate to land Brunell.

Link
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/s ... 8758.shtml


There were other teams after Brunell, UNTIL Gibbs made the big offer. Had he not made that big offer, the Skins may not have gotten him. Especially if the Jags had cut him and these other teams didn't have to trade a pick for him, they would have been all over him.

[skinsfan#33]

Gibbs should either have never hired Saunders or given him 100% control over the offense.

I agree with that 100%!

[BnGhog]

Gibbs should either have never hired Saunders or given him 100% control over the offense.

I agree with that 100%!

Totally agree with that one.

[RayNAustin]

To me there are so many factors that go toward making him a NFL starter between now and then, that you can't judge Vinnys sucess by how well the draft pick does years later. You are using future info, that we didn't have at the time of the draft.

So if Kelly has great potential, and his knee does blow out at camp, and is is never able to become a starter. You saying that is Vinnys lack of picking talent? That is no way to judge how well Vinny and the FO did there job.

Or what if our coaches can't teach him, like he needs to be? Then, he gets bought by another team in FA and they teach him, and he becomes a star, is that too, Vinnys lack of picking talent?

WHAT IF? WHAT IF? Do you just want to argue? If so, by all means go for it. But get my statements straight and don't put words in my mouth.

I said SUCCESSFUL DRAFT not Vinny's ability to judge talent, and no one would consider an injury the fault of a GM or anything that could be anticipated. I won't even address the nonsense about coaches failing to teach.

The basic, elementary point you seem to be missing here is SUCCESSFUL DRAFT. If a player doesn't make the team, or doesn't perform up to the level expected from their position in the draft, that pick was not a successful one. And you simply can't make that determination the day after. That was and is the only point I was making. And it's a very simple, straight forward point at that.

That is the type of info Vinny did not have at the time of the draft, but this is info you will use judge him a year or two down the road.

With the knowlege he had at the time of the draft, he did a good job. You can only take that away by using hind sight. And if you do that and bash him for that, then you will have to bash every other teams FO's for the same mistake.

First, where did I even mention Vinny in my post...? But to answer this simply...YES. YES YES YES YES that is how GM's are judged. By results. Get it? EVERYONE has the same information...or the opportunity to get that information, and the ability to assess that information and make good decisions is their job. Anyone can pick draft picks based on "expert" analysis of potential talent, and yes, every year FO's all over the NFL make bad picks. You judge their overall success based on the ratio of good - bad picks. Nobody expects to pick 9 and have all 9 become starters or even make the team. But you'd better have a high % of your early picks work out well, otherwise you are not very good, or not very lucky.

As far as the other teams go....there are some who consistently do well...and that's why they consistently field winning teams. Likewise there are others who consistently chose poorly and that shows up on the field too.

It is rare for every pick a team makes in one draft to become stars, it just don't happen. All Im saying is that its not fair to him to bash him or being prepaird to bash him when some of these picks don't work out. Some will work out and some won't and its not always the talent scouts doing a bad job, sometime these guys just don't have what it takes. And a lot of times there is no way to tell. Because it is common knowledge that a lot of college players won't make the cut and that is true with any team in the NFL, not just the Skins and their picks.

Ok, Ok if none of his picks make the team, you could say this draft was unsuccessful, but I don't think that will happen.

If only 4 of these guys make the team I'd still think its pretty sucessfull because MOST college players don't have what it takes. That's why its the pros, you have to be elite to make the team.

That's why there is a draft, and why the vast majority of players aren't even drafted. The GM's job is picking the players that do HAVE IT. And there WILL BE players that make teams, and even become starters, even stars that were drafted from every round. The real genius is in picking solid players in the late rounds. And there are charts regarding draft picks and what percentage of them "should" make various levels from each round.

Common sense would tell you that the % of players that make the team should be much higher from the 1st, and 2nd rounds than players from the 6th and 7th rounds.

The truly superior GM's maintain a high success rate with their early picks, and an above average success rate with their late picks. That's what separates the great ones from the not so great.

What a player looks like on paper has nothing to do with whether a draft was successful or not. What that player becomes, and how much that player produces is the ONLY real measure. And the only way to judge that is AFTER THE FACT.

[RayNAustin]

I think tooooo much emphasis has been put on the bad moves. Every team has bad moves. Like the AA move. But it you really break it down into what was suppose to be at the time.... He was, is and never will be a cover guy. He was brought in for more run support. Tayler by himself could play center fielder and cover. But AA ended up being used to cover. If had been used correctly he simply would have been ok and would have been a little over paid. But sense he wasn't and it didn't work out ( here is that hind site is 20/20 thing agian) it was a very bad move.

That is such nonsense. No, every team does not make AA moves. Your statement itself proves my point. Why would the Redskins pick a FA safety that can't cover, pay him the largest salary ever given to a Safety, and then expect him to do what he can't do? Did the Redskins not know what defense they run? Please. Fact is, Chicago doesn't seem to be using him "properly" either, which fortunately puts the Skins in second place in the "I'm an idiot for picking Adam Archuletta" contest.

Peaple always remember your bad moves and not the good ones. They have to have a 53 man roster every year. You state you can think of a dozen off the top of your head in 4 years. Thats 12 bad moves out of a 53 man roster times 4 years that's 212 decisions that had to be made weather to keep, trade, draft, or cut. That's what like 6% was bad moves. That's 94% good moves. I would say that is a passing grade.

Ridiculous analogy or figuring or whatever you call this. Teams do not make 53 man roster changes every year do they? NO THEY DO NOT. Rebuilding teams probably don't change their roster more that a dozen players, and the Redskins were not rebuilding. They were improving on a core group.

And I was referring to FA moves, where you should be almost 100%, and surely 90%. That's why teams sometimes trade 1st round picks for experienced (proven) FA because it is supposed to remove the risk. You expect the proven player to perform because he's already proven that ability.

And you certainly don't let a proven starter leave in order to sign a replacement that you have to pay three times more who winds up being benched for lack of performance.

You don't let your MLB (the QB of your defense) leave and go to a division rival. You don't trade draft picks for a player (TJ Ducket) that is never used. You don't trade picks for a player (Lloyd) and give him a huge new contract (when he was already under contract) before he plays a down. You don't do these things and say, OH well, win some you lose some.

Too much emphasis on bad moves? No. Not enough emphasis apparently, because they did it every year for the first three years.

Letting Smoot go the very next year after we traded away Bailey. Bad move.

Letting Harris go on top of it....and bringing in Kenny Wright and the other guy, neither of which could cover my grandmother, while Harris was one of the leaders in interceptions the next year (with another team).

Picking Rodgers with a #1 pick. At best, he was a 3rd, or plays that way.

Letting Clark go and replacing him with Archuletta.

Letting Peirce go and replacing him with Marshall who didn't make it as a MLB

And that's just on defense in three years and why we went from 3rd in the NFL in 2004 to 31st in 2006

Then we have Brunell who we gave up picks for. We paid too much for Portis (getting Portis wasn't a bad move, but Denver got the better of us on the deal. Bailey was certainly worth a straight up trade without having to include picks too.

We give up picks and big money for Lloyd...a total bust.

Duckett, total bust and wasted picks

ARE marginal, but no great success story like Moss.

We pick up Caldwell, and Mcardell and don't bother using them for half a season even though all of our starters were limping.

That's just off the top of my head, and I bet someone could point out a few more.

You think this is even remotely close to success? It's barely 50% on FA !!!

So it was good that the Redskins stayed away from the FA market this year. They couldn't afford anymore of that nonsense and still field a team.

This year it seems that someone was paying attention and worked to retain our core players and simply added potential talent via the draft.

So I think Vinny/Snyder did a decent job which could, if we're lucky, turn out to be a great job if our picks turn out to be solid players. And you just never know....Colt Brennan (though a long shot) could turn out to be the steal of the century a couple of year down the road.

Again, only time will tell.

[skinsfan#33]

Letting Harris go on top of it....and bringing in Kenny Wright and the other guy, neither of which could cover my grandmother, while Harris was one of the leaders in interceptions the next year (with another team).

First let me say I agree with almost everything else in your post except the portion I kept.

Every single fan was happy to see Harris go! NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED the season Harris would have on a DIFFERENT team. I think it is disingenuous to count Harris as a FA mistake. Unless you expect your team to have the power of seeing into the future, there was no way the Skins could have seen the season Harris would have! And there is no telling if he had been on the Skins if he would have had the same type of season.

I'm just venting. I have heard plenty of of people condemn the Skins for the same thing. When those same fans wanted Harris gone.

I think you were rough on Rogers. No pre-draft that year had him as anything other than a mid to high 1st round pick. And if I remember correctly he was the third CB taken that year. If the Skins had held to the plan they had this year they would have either traded down or taken Shawn "lights out" Merriman, but they drafted for need instead of sticking to their board. And if C Rog was higher on their board it was only because their evaluation was clouded by their need.

[RayNAustin]

I think tooooo much emphasis has been put on the bad moves. Every team has bad moves. Like the AA move. But it you really break it down into what was suppose to be at the time.... He was, is and never will be a cover guy. He was brought in for more run support. Tayler by himself could play center fielder and cover. But AA ended up being used to cover. If had been used correctly he simply would have been ok and would have been a little over paid. But sense he wasn't and it didn't work out ( here is that hind site is 20/20 thing agian) it was a very bad move.

That is such nonsense. No, every team does not make AA moves. Your statement itself proves my point. Why would the Redskins pick a FA safety that can't cover, pay him the largest salary ever given to a Safety, and then expect him to do what he can't do? Did the Redskins not know what defense they run? Please. Fact is, Chicago doesn't seem to be using him "properly" either, which fortunately puts the Skins in second place in the "I'm an idiot for picking Adam Archuletta" contest. And as idiotic as the Redskins were, Chicago proves that there is a sucker born every minute.

Peaple always remember your bad moves and not the good ones. They have to have a 53 man roster every year. You state you can think of a dozen off the top of your head in 4 years. Thats 12 bad moves out of a 53 man roster times 4 years that's 212 decisions that had to be made weather to keep, trade, draft, or cut. That's what like 6% was bad moves. That's 94% good moves. I would say that is a passing grade.

Ridiculous analogy or figuring or whatever you call this. Teams do not make 53 man roster changes every year do they? NO THEY DO NOT. Rebuilding teams probably don't change their roster more that a dozen players, and the Redskins were not rebuilding. They were improving on a core group.

And I was referring to FA moves, where you should be almost 100%, and surely 90%. That's why teams sometimes trade 1st round picks for experienced (proven) FA because it is supposed to remove the risk. You expect the proven player to perform because he's already proven that ability.

And you certainly don't let a proven starter leave in order to sign a replacement that you have to pay three times more who winds up being benched for lack of performance.

You don't let your MLB (the QB of your defense) leave and go to a division rival. You don't trade draft picks for a player (TJ Ducket) that is never used. You don't trade picks for a player (Lloyd) and give him a huge new contract (when he was already under contract) before he plays a down. You don't do these things and say, OH well, win some you lose some.

Too much emphasis on bad moves? No. Not enough emphasis apparently, because they did it every year for the first three years.

Letting Smoot go the very next year after we traded away Bailey. Bad move.

Letting Harris go on top of it....and bringing in Kenny Wright and the other guy, neither of which could cover my grandmother, while Harris was one of the leaders in interceptions the next year (with another team).

Picking Rodgers with a #1 pick. At best, he was a 3rd, or plays that way.

Letting Clark go and replacing him with Archuletta.

Letting Peirce go and replacing him with Marshall who didn't make it as a MLB

And that's just on defense in three years and why we went from 3rd in the NFL in 2004 to 31st in 2006

Then we have Brunell who we gave up picks for. We paid too much for Portis (getting Portis wasn't a bad move, but Denver got the better of us on the deal. Bailey was certainly worth a straight up trade without having to include picks too.

We give up picks and big money for Lloyd...a total bust.

Duckett, total bust and wasted picks

ARE marginal, but no great success story like Moss.

We pick up Caldwell, and Mcardell and don't bother using them for half a season even though all of our starters were limping.

That's just off the top of my head, and I bet someone could point out a few more.

You think this is even remotely close to success? It's barely 50% on FA !!!

So it was good that the Redskins stayed away from the FA market this year. They couldn't afford anymore of that nonsense and still field a team.

This year it seems that someone was paying attention and worked to retain our core players and simply added potential talent via the draft.

So I think Vinny/Snyder did a decent job which could, if we're lucky, turn out to be a great job if our picks turn out to be solid players. And you just never know....Colt Brennan (though a long shot) could turn out to be the steal of the century a couple of year down the road.

Again, only time will tell.

[Fios]

So much of that lengthy recap lacks context

[chiefhog44]

Gibbs inherited a team that was pretty poor. As with any new coach (besides Herm Edwards), you are going to want free agents to come in and play in positions where you can't find players in the draft. Gibbs was too old to wait years through drafts to rebuild for decent team. There was a very small window for him to win. He had to go the free agency route and he missed on some free agents.

He also inherited a pretty poor front office. Dan Snyder was doing all the wrong things as an owner. He fired almost the entire front office, he was a meddling owner, he blew through coaches etc. etc. etc. Gibbs came in taught him to hire the best personel, with the best character, and trust them to run the organization. You now see that happening. He elevated Cerrato and he elevated Scott Campbell to head scout hired Zorn as coach and stayed out of their hair. He brought in Zorn and you hear him with the same attitude. He's going to let his assistants coach. Hands off.

Gibbs brought in a great base of character players. So good that the team didn't feel the need to pick up any free agents in the offseason. He positioned the team to build through the draft. He taught Dan how to be an owner.

His legacy on this team should read...
Character
Hard work
Hire the best possible employees/coaches (another example is his Napcar team)
Instill a hands off approach
To build through the draft

[RayNAustin]

Letting Harris go on top of it....and bringing in Kenny Wright and the other guy, neither of which could cover my grandmother, while Harris was one of the leaders in interceptions the next year (with another team).

First let me say I agree with almost everything else in your post except the portion I kept.

Every single fan was happy to see Harris go! NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED the season Harris would have on a DIFFERENT team. I think it is disingenuous to count Harris as a FA mistake. Unless you expect your team to have the power of seeing into the future, there was no way the Skins could have seen the season Harris would have! And there is no telling if he had been on the Skins if he would have had the same type of season.

I'm just venting. I have heard plenty of of people condemn the Skins for the same thing. When those same fans wanted Harris gone.

I think you were rough on Rogers. No pre-draft that year had him as anything other than a mid to high 1st round pick. And if I remember correctly he was the third CB taken that year. If the Skins had held to the plan they had this year they would have either traded down or taken Shawn "lights out" Merriman, but they drafted for need instead of sticking to their board. And if C Rog was higher on their board it was only because their evaluation was clouded by their need.

I follow you here, but I'm not buying the "every single fan was happy to see him go" deal. That's pretty presumptuous of you to speak for everybody. I thought it was a mistake at the time simply because we were already thin at DB, and Springs is no "spring chicken" no pun intended. Remember, we'd already let go Bailey and then Smoot previously.

And I don't think I'm being rough on Rogers. After a couple of years, you expect a 1st round CB to be an impact player......I'm not expecting him to be Neon Deon.....and nobody would confuse him with Darrel Green, now would they? Hands made of cinder block and plays 10 yards off the line to protect deep. He's a good tackler, but I'd rather him tackle less and shutdown more....and CATCH THE FREAKING BALL when it hits him in the hands.

But that's just me.

[RayNAustin]

So much of that lengthy recap lacks context

By context, do you mean rationalizing and excuse making?

I'm not sure about how one might go about adding context other that to say that on defense, until the big slide in 2006, Gregg Williams and staff were so full of themselves they believed their system played football for the redskins instead of the players, so they figured they could let go guys like Smoot and Clark and Peirce and Harris and Arrington and just plug in another player and not miss a beat. They were very wrong.

The Redskins not only made poor FA decisions, but they failed to utilize the talent they had. Arrington, two time pro bowler was just not up to the task in Dale Lindsey's and Gregg Williams eyes, so they allowed Holdman to stink up the joint with Lavar healthy and riding the pine. Why? Arrogance and stubbornness.

[RayNAustin]

Now that I've had a chance to think more about "context", I can offer a comparison of situations when there was good reason to let a good player leave. McCardell was one such case. He was drafted and let go, and he went on to have a great career. But he was let go because the Redskins at the time were deep with fine receivers, so it made sense to let him go. They didn't "hurt" themselves by doing that.

So it would be without context to say that letting him go was a bad decision when the full story doesn't support that.

I can think of no compelling reasons other than poor judgment to explain the list of bad moves I posted.

You'll notice that I didn't include some other moves....like letting Dockery go. Of course it turned out that the O-line missed him. But the decision to let him leave made sense from a cap perspective. So even though it was a negative from strictly a players perspective, it wasn't an error.

Something that isn't talked about much is the locker room discontent that was being created with letting players go and bringing in higher paid replacements that didn't live up to expectations. There was a significant amount of that going on behind the scenes between 2004-2006.

And even though Joe Gibbs always had the respect of the players, there were some frustrations building regarding those issues as well as the issues of poor clock management and questionable play calling too.

So yes, in 4 years the Redskins made the playoffs twice....great considering the long dry spell of the previous years. But to put that into context, both years required miracle finishes just to sneak into the playoffs as a wild card and most of it was player driven and not great coaching decisions.

2005, they had there backs against the wall and the players took charge and won 5 in a row, largely on the back of Portis.

In 2007, injury to Campbell put Collins on the field, and there is no way the Redskins would have made it in without Collins surprising play.

[Fios]

So much of that lengthy recap lacks context

By context, do you mean rationalizing and excuse making?

I'm not sure about how one might go about adding context other that to say that on defense, until the big slide in 2006, Gregg Williams and staff were so full of themselves they believed their system played football for the redskins instead of the players, so they figured they could let go guys like Smoot and Clark and Peirce and Harris and Arrington and just plug in another player and not miss a beat. They were very wrong.

The Redskins not only made poor FA decisions, but they failed to utilize the talent they had. Arrington, two time pro bowler was just not up to the task in Dale Lindsey's and Gregg Williams eyes, so they allowed Holdman to stink up the joint with Lavar healthy and riding the pine. Why? Arrogance and stubbornness.

Yes, that's what I mean, thanks for filling in the gaps. I've had this discussion way too many times to rehash it now.