The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I really dont feel like replying to all of that but I do have one question.

How do you propose that they get all of this playing time when they have been hurt? Do you think that they wouldn't have played if they were healthy?

I agree with CLL on this.

I think the injuries have had the biggest impact on Thomas and Kelly's progress. Of course, the injuries essentially resulted from the fact that they didn't come into camp in shape. It all starts with the details, building from a solid foundation. It's too bad these guys will be playing catchup for the rest of the year but maybe it will have taught them a lesson.

Irn-Bru wrote:I agree with CLL on this.

I think the injuries have had the biggest impact on Thomas and Kelly's progress. Of course, the injuries essentially resulted from the fact that they didn't come into camp in shape. It all starts with the details, building from a solid foundation. It's too bad these guys will be playing catchup for the rest of the year but maybe it will have taught them a lesson.

The Redskins seem to have a couple of types of injuries that plague a variety of players. The speed guys get the hamstring injuries one after another and the bigger guys have Achilles injuries. Does anyone thing it could be a problem with the training staff? I know all teams have various types of injuries, but it seems like the Skins have been routinely plagued year after year among a variety of different players. While the rookie WRs may not have been in tip-top shape coming into camp, could it be that they were in good enough shape, but mishandled?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I really dont feel like replying to all of that but I do have one question.

How do you propose that they get all of this playing time when they have been hurt? Do you think that they wouldn't have played if they were healthy?

Well, if they can't, they can't. Devin is back, and that is why I keep saying him and not Malcom.

If they hurt, they are hurt. Nothing anyone can do about that.

Why have 10 WRs right now. If we already know the first 5 that are making the team(Tanaman, El, Thrash, Thomas, Kelly). If they keep 6 the last spot is between Mcmullen and Mix. Why have Burl Toler waste his time playing in the fourth quater when you could be getting Thomas some real in game reps? That was really my question. And I was comming from the now, not from beggining of preseason. Now, we know who is still in the mix and who is not. The guys in the mix, is the only guys we need to see preform now. Tana, and El needs some reps for practice, but then after that, let the guys who need it get in there and get reps.

Wasn't trying to complain, whine or anything like that. Nor was I trying to give the WRs a hard time. Just seems like a waste to have Mann in there, when other guys up on the depth chart needs practice.

BnGhog wrote:Why have Burl Toler waste his time playing in the fourth quater when you could be getting Thomas some real in game reps?

Devin JUST got back from his injury. He played last week which was the 1st time he has been available... How long did you want them to keep him in? Zorn said he was putting ice down his back in the 1st quarter, he was gassed. I think he even admitted to it in an interview. He's still not conditioned.

Malcolm has been sitting on his butt until last Sunday won't fare too much better.

TOler is getting reps cus of injuries to...

ARE
Malcom
Devon

Moss and ARE are only going to play a handful of plays. U gotta have guys just to run the rest of the game. U have to have guys who have PRACTICED so that the rest of the team doesn't suffer.

Would Brennan look as good if he didn't have WR's in there that didn't know the routes? No.

Would the o-line look as good if the TE/WR's werent were they should be when Colt is about to get sacked? No.

These guys have to make themselves available for the team before we can start hounding the coaches for not playing them.

1niksder wrote:Can you explain this...

GSPODS wrote:I explain it as Devin Thomas was specifically targeted in the 1st round.

Then...

GSPODS wrote:Originally, the Redskins had targeted Malcolm Kelly only.

How Kelly the only one targeted if Thomas was specifically targeted ?

GSPODS wrote:I explain it as the Redskins passing offense was so anemic last season that they would have traded all of their picks for Chad Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald or drafted another three wide receivers if any others looked like they had potential.

They never went after Larry Fitzgerald and everyone knows they only offered two first rounders for Chad Johnson and never offered more when the two #1s were turned down also they only drafted two WRs not three

Be careful what you ask for ... You just might get it.

"Originally" means before walking into the War Room.
In the first round means during the first round of the draft, as the draft is happening, not before.
There were rumours the Redskins had offered a conditional third 1st round draft pick for Chad Johnson.
There were rumors the Redskins would have pursued Larry Fitzgerald if he had been made available. He wasn't.

For those who continue to take single sentences out of the paragraphical context in which they were written, I present single sentences:

The Redskins would have traded anything for any top tier receiver.

A proven veteran receiver was the Redskins only free agency target at the beginning of the free agency period, all other needs be damned.

Nobody was trading any proven top tier receiver at any price the Redskins were willing to pay, which is to say two 1st round picks and possibly a conditional third 1st round pick.

Plan A failed, so Plan B was the draft.

Kelly was the only original receiving target.

The Redskins did not go into the draft targeting players they expected to be drafted off the board before they selected.

The Redskins did not expect Thomas or Davis to still be on the board when they drafted in the first round.

The Redskins really did not expect Thomas or Davis to still be on the board after they traded down.

When the Redskins traded down and both Thomas and Davis were still on the board, the Redskins went from their target to their highest rated player (Thomas) because he was ranked higher on the Redskins draft board at the same position of need.

Then they went to their next highest rated player on their draft board(Davis) because their targeted player (Kelly) was still on the board.

Then they went to their targeted player (Kelly) because he was still on the board.

The Redskins did draft three receivers.

Davis sure as hell isn't a blocking tight end, and is a former wide receiver.

Is this making sense yet? If not, go back and read all of Vinny Cerrato's comments regarding the draft. Everyone knows Cerrato said that the Redskins drafted the highest players on their draft board, regardless of position. Everyone who read between the lines knows the Redskins drafted the highest players on their board at their specific position of need. Meaning not every player was on the Redskins draft board, only those they had an interest in drafting.

If no other team had any of these three players higher on their boards than the Redskins did, what does that say?

It says that the Redskins took a gamble on three players at positions of need, not that the Redskins took the three best players on the board, regardless of position.

31 other teams, and none of them had Thomas higher than 34, Davis higher than 48 or Kelly higher than 51.

But the Redskins drafted three receivers because they were the three highest players on their draft board, even though these players were nowhere to be found on any other team's draft boards?

That would make Cerrato the NFL's only draft guru, the only GM who knew the talent in not one, but three different draft picks.

Or it would mean the Redskins were drafting for need and their draft board was laid out for their needs, not based upon the best overall player(s) remaining in the draft, regardless of position.

Logically, nobody would believe that Vinny Cerrato was the only GM of 32 NFL franchises that saw any value in Thomas, Davis or Kelly as high to middle 2nd round draft picks The logical value was and is to the Redskins at a position of dire need.

Even Draft Analysis had this to say about the Redskins first three picks:

Round 2, Pick 3 (34) (From Raiders through Falcons) Devin Thomas WR 6'2" 215 Michigan State
Pick Analysis:The Redskins traded back and still got the top wide receiver on their board. Thomas has great athletic ability, but really only put up big numbers one year in college. He'll have a chance to get immediate playing time in Washington.

Round 2, Pick 17 (48) (From Texans through Falcons) Fred Davis TE 6'4" 248 Southern Cal
Pick Analysis:Davis gives the Redskins a solid one-two punch at tight with starter Chris ey. Washington decided to add depth at the position because Davis' hands and his ability to separate were too good to pass up. He started 23 games over the past two years.

Round 2, Pick 20 (51) Malcolm Kelly WR 6'4" 218 Oklahoma
Pick Analysis:The Redskins use a second draft pick on a wide receiver in the round. Kelly is similar in size to Devin Thomas and gives the team a lot of young talent to work with. It appears Washington will wait to address its other needs.

The Redskins passing offense was beyond anemic last season.

18th in Scoring, 15th in Total Yards Per Game, 14th in Passing Yards per Game, 12th in Rushing Yards per Game, 19th in Touchdowns.

Any reasonable way anyone looks at it, the Redskins were targeting large receivers, whether they were wide receivers or tight ends , and any attempt by anyone to claim otherwise is simply unfounded and baseless nonsense. Even I couldn't twist logic enough to prove the "The Redskins drafted the best player available at any position" argument. They didn't. They drafted the highest rated player on their draft board. There is a huge difference. It would also take seriously twisted logic to try and argue that the Redskins draft board had every draft prospect ranked.

If the Redskins had truly been taking the concensus best player in the draft, regardless of position, they would have taken one of the following:

21 Atlanta Baker, Sam OT
22 Dallas Jones, Felix RB
23 Pittsburgh Mendenhall, Rashard RB
24 Tennessee Johnson, Chris RB
25 Dallas Jenkins, Mike CB
26 Houston Brown, Duane OT
27 San Diego Cason, Antoine CB
28 Seattle Jackson, Lawrence DE
29 San Francisco Balmer, Kentwan DE
30 NY Jets Keller, Dustin TE
31 NY Giants Phillips, Kenny FS

I hope this is making sense because there are only so many different ways to explain the same thing. I've run the gamut of my explanations.

GSPODS wrote:

1niksder wrote:Can you explain this...

GSPODS wrote:I explain it as Devin Thomas was specifically targeted in the 1st round.

Then...

GSPODS wrote:Originally, the Redskins had targeted Malcolm Kelly only.

How Kelly the only one targeted if Thomas was specifically targeted ?

GSPODS wrote:I explain it as the Redskins passing offense was so anemic last season that they would have traded all of their picks for Chad Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald or drafted another three wide receivers if any others looked like they had potential.

They never went after Larry Fitzgerald and everyone knows they only offered two first rounders for Chad Johnson and never offered more when the two #1s were turned down also they only drafted two WRs not three

Be careful what you ask for ... You just might get it.

"Originally" means before walking into the War Room.
In the first round means during the first round of the draft, as the draft is happening, not before.
There were rumours the Redskins had offered a conditional third 1st round draft pick for Chad Johnson.
There were rumors the Redskins would have pursued Larry Fitzgerald if he had been made available. He wasn't.

For those who continue to take single sentences out of the paragraphical context in which they were written, I present single sentences:

The Redskins would have traded anything for any top tier receiver.

A proven veteran receiver was the Redskins only free agency target at the beginning of the free agency period, all other needs be damned.

Nobody was trading any proven top tier receiver at any price the Redskins were willing to pay, which is to say two 1st round picks and possibly a conditional third 1st round pick.

Plan A failed, so Plan B was the draft.

Kelly was the only original receiving target.

The Redskins did not go into the draft targeting players they expected to be drafted off the board before they selected.

The Redskins did not expect Thomas or Davis to still be on the board when they drafted in the first round.

The Redskins really did not expect Thomas or Davis to still be on the board after they traded down.

When the Redskins traded down and both Thomas and Davis were still on the board, the Redskins went from their target to their highest rated player (Thomas) because he was ranked higher on the Redskins draft board at the same position of need.

Then they went to their next highest rated player on their draft board(Davis) because their targeted player (Kelly) was still on the board.

Then they went to their targeted player (Kelly) because he was still on the board.

The Redskins did draft three receivers.

Davis sure as hell isn't a blocking tight end, and is a former wide receiver.

Is this making sense yet? If not, go back and read all of Vinny Cerrato's comments regarding the draft. Everyone knows Cerrato said that the Redskins drafted the highest players on their draft board, regardless of position. Everyone who read between the lines knows the Redskins drafted the highest players on their board at their specific position of need. Meaning not every player was on the Redskins draft board, only those they had an interest in drafting.

If no other team had any of these three players higher on their boards than the Redskins did, what does that say?

It says that the Redskins took a gamble on three players at positions of need, not that the Redskins took the three best players on the board, regardless of position.

31 other teams, and none of them had Thomas higher than 34, Davis higher than 48 or Kelly higher than 51.

But the Redskins drafted three receivers because they were the three highest players on their draft board, even though these players were nowhere to be found on any other team's draft boards?

That would make Cerrato the NFL's only draft guru, the only GM who knew the talent in not one, but three different draft picks.

Or it would mean the Redskins were drafting for need and their draft board was laid out for their needs, not based upon the best overall player(s) remaining in the draft, regardless of position.

Logically, nobody would believe that Vinny Cerrato was the only GM of 32 NFL franchises that saw any value in Thomas, Davis or Kelly as high to middle 2nd round draft picks The logical value was and is to the Redskins at a position of dire need.

Even Draft Analysis had this to say about the Redskins first three picks:

Round 2, Pick 3 (34) (From Raiders through Falcons) Devin Thomas WR 6'2" 215 Michigan State
Pick Analysis:The Redskins traded back and still got the top wide receiver on their board. Thomas has great athletic ability, but really only put up big numbers one year in college. He'll have a chance to get immediate playing time in Washington.

Round 2, Pick 17 (48) (From Texans through Falcons) Fred Davis TE 6'4" 248 Southern Cal
Pick Analysis:Davis gives the Redskins a solid one-two punch at tight with starter Chris ey. Washington decided to add depth at the position because Davis' hands and his ability to separate were too good to pass up. He started 23 games over the past two years.

Round 2, Pick 20 (51) Malcolm Kelly WR 6'4" 218 Oklahoma
Pick Analysis:The Redskins use a second draft pick on a wide receiver in the round. Kelly is similar in size to Devin Thomas and gives the team a lot of young talent to work with. It appears Washington will wait to address its other needs.

The Redskins passing offense was beyond anemic last season.

18th in Scoring, 15th in Total Yards Per Game, 14th in Passing Yards per Game, 12th in Rushing Yards per Game, 19th in Touchdowns.

Any reasonable way anyone looks at it, the Redskins were targeting large receivers, whether they were wide receivers or tight ends , and any attempt by anyone to claim otherwise is simply unfounded and baseless nonsense. Even I couldn't twist logic enough to prove the "The Redskins drafted the best player available at any position" argument. They didn't. They drafted the highest rated player on their draft board. There is a huge difference. It would also take seriously twisted logic to try and argue that the Redskins draft board had every draft prospect ranked.

If the Redskins had truly been taking the concensus best player in the draft, regardless of position, they would have taken one of the following:

21 Atlanta Baker, Sam OT
22 Dallas Jones, Felix RB
23 Pittsburgh Mendenhall, Rashard RB
24 Tennessee Johnson, Chris RB
25 Dallas Jenkins, Mike CB
26 Houston Brown, Duane OT
27 San Diego Cason, Antoine CB
28 Seattle Jackson, Lawrence DE
29 San Francisco Balmer, Kentwan DE
30 NY Jets Keller, Dustin TE
31 NY Giants Phillips, Kenny FS

I hope this is making sense because there are only so many different ways to explain the same thing. I've run the gamut of my explanations.

Your arguments would make sense if any analyst actually expected thomas to go that late, but none of them did. Kelly could have been considered a steal too considering his upside. Lets not forget they were all taken in the second round, they weren't exactly stretching. All the WR's came off in the second.

GSPODS wrote

If the Redskins had truly been taking the concensus best player in the draft, regardless of position, they would have taken one of the following:

21 Atlanta Baker, Sam OT
22 Dallas Jones, Felix RB
23 Pittsburgh Mendenhall, Rashard RB
24 Tennessee Johnson, Chris RB
25 Dallas Jenkins, Mike CB
26 Houston Brown, Duane OT
27 San Diego Cason, Antoine CB
28 Seattle Jackson, Lawrence DE
29 San Francisco Balmer, Kentwan DE
30 NY Jets Keller, Dustin TE
31 NY Giants Phillips, Kenny FS

Who said anything about concensus? Vinny's board was probably different than other GMs', just as GM's boards were different from those posted on the web. Also he thought he would get more value trading down. I don't thing those picks necessarilly represented any kind of concensus.

I mean, whats the big deal? Why rush them and have them playing in an offense they aren't comfy in yet?

Because our wide receiving corps isn't very good. I agree that Gibbs handcuffed the offense, but even still, our receivers were flat out awful last year. I believe that only the Bills had less td's from their receivers than we did. A lineup of Moss/ARE/Thrash isn't going to scare anyone. Obviously we needed to address the wr spot during the preseason and we did that with Thomas and Kelly. However, one or both of them needs to start stepping up and making a contribution because we need all the help that we can get at that spot.

Let´s keep it simple: on draft say Snyder cornered the WR market.

Stockpile WRs. One of them has to give good results, a la different stock in Wall Street.

yupchagee wrote:GSPODS wrote

If the Redskins had truly been taking the concensus best player in the draft, regardless of position, they would have taken one of the following:

21 Atlanta Baker, Sam OT
22 Dallas Jones, Felix RB
23 Pittsburgh Mendenhall, Rashard RB
24 Tennessee Johnson, Chris RB
25 Dallas Jenkins, Mike CB
26 Houston Brown, Duane OT
27 San Diego Cason, Antoine CB
28 Seattle Jackson, Lawrence DE
29 San Francisco Balmer, Kentwan DE
30 NY Jets Keller, Dustin TE
31 NY Giants Phillips, Kenny FS

Who said anything about concensus? Vinny's board was probably different than other GMs', just as GM's boards were different from those posted on the web. Also he thought he would get more value trading down. I don't thing those picks necessarilly represented any kind of concensus.

That IS THE argument, that the Redskins draft board was loaded with receivers, and not only wide receivers, but any large possession and red zone targets. The argument is that the Redskins did not draft the best player, regardless of position. The Redskins drafted the best player on their draft board, regardless of position. The argument is also that the Redskins draft board may have ranked Thomas and Davis, but the initial draft plan was to start with Kelly and go from there. The Redskins fully expected a run on wide receivers that never happened, which is how and why they traded down and still drafted three receivers with their first three selections. The other argument is that no other team had any of these three, Thomas, Davis or Kelly, rated higher than #50 on their draft boards. Why? Is Vinny a genius? Are the other GM's stupid? Are these players defective? Everyone knows receivers are a risky draft pick, but not one of these three was ranked higher than #50 on any other team's draft board? Conclusion: The Redskins were targeting receivers, regardless of talent level, and regardless of the best available players remaining.

I think you followed these points a long time ago. There were quite a few people who didn't, so the lengthy explanation that very few people will read was posted.

GSPODS wrote:The other argument is that no other team had any of these three, Thomas, Davis or Kelly, rated higher than #50 on their draft boards.

Thomas was drafted 34th overall, yet you're saying that no other team had him rated higher than 50?

Please cite a source that supports this claim.

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:The other argument is that no other team had any of these three, Thomas, Davis or Kelly, rated higher than #50 on their draft boards.

Thomas was drafted 34th overall, yet you're saying that no other team had him rated higher than 50?

Please cite a source that supports this claim.

It's an opinion, an educated guess if you will, based upon the fact that Donnie Avery (33) was drafted before Thomas (34), and Jordy Nelson (36), James Hardy (41), Eddie Royal (42), Jerome Simpson (46), and DeSean Jackson (49) were taken in between Thomas and Kelly. Davis, the only potential 1st round tight end, was still on the board at #48.

This doesn't need to be sourced because it is an argument about what the Redskins draft strategy was, not about what other teams were doing. It is an argument about how the Redskins draft board was laid out. It is an argument about how truthful or full of crap Vinny Cerrato was when he said that the Redskins drafted the best players on the board, regardless of position. And it's obviously an opinion because only the Redskins front office knows specifically how they laid out their draft strategy, and how or if it changed as the draft was in progress. I can't believe that would need to be pointed out. Then again, I can't believe most of the things that need to be pointed out on this message board. Why can no one on this board connect two points without a bolded, highlighted line drawn for them? Why can no one distinguish between opinion and fact unless someone says "THIS IS AN OPINION, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES LISTED. HAD THIS BEEN AN ACTUAL FACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES. YOU MAY NOW RETURN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED OPINION, ALREADY IN PROGRESS" The density on this message board could repel a nuclear warhead.

GSPODS wrote:The argument is that the Redskins did not draft the best player, regardless of position. The Redskins drafted the best player on their draft board, regardless of position. The argument is also that the Redskins draft board may have ranked Thomas and Davis, but the initial draft plan was to start with Kelly and go from there. The Redskins fully expected a run on wide receivers that never happened, which is how and why they traded down and still drafted three receivers with their first three selections. The other argument is that no other team had any of these three, Thomas, Davis or Kelly, rated higher than #50 on their draft boards. Why? Is Vinny a genius? Are the other GM's stupid? Are these players defective? Everyone knows receivers are a risky draft pick, but not one of these three was ranked higher than #50 on any other team's draft board? Conclusion: The Redskins were targeting receivers, regardless of talent level, and regardless of the best available players remaining.

You haven't established this conclusion. To PulpExposure's point you assume facts not in evidence that we rated them all higher then everyone else. Even if true, that we rated them higher then everyone else, the only argument made, does not establish the claim in your conclusion our rating was "reardless of talent level" as you pulled out of your...ear.

Basically what you're arguing is that if you can find any pattern in any draft board, like our drafting 3 pass catchers in a row, talent was ignored. That's all the evidence required. That's nonsense.

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:The other argument is that no other team had any of these three, Thomas, Davis or Kelly, rated higher than #50 on their draft boards.

Thomas was drafted 34th overall, yet you're saying that no other team had him rated higher than 50?

Please cite a source that supports this claim.

It's an opinion, an educated guess if you will, based upon the fact that Donnie Avery (33) was drafted before Thomas (34), and Jordy Nelson (36), James Hardy (41), Eddie Royal (42), Jerome Simpson (46), and DeSean Jackson (49) were taken in between Thomas and Kelly. Davis, the only potential 1st round tight end, was still on the board at #48.

This doesn't need to be sourced because it is an argument about what the Redskins draft strategy was, not about what other teams were doing. It is an argument about how the Redskins draft board was laid out. It is an argument about how truthful or full of crap Vinny Cerrato was when he said that the Redskins drafted the best players on the board, regardless of position. And it's obviously an opinion because only the Redskins front office knows specifically how they laid out their draft strategy, and how or if it changed as the draft was in progress. I can't believe that would need to be pointed out. Then again, I can't believe most of the things that need to be pointed out on this message board. Why can no one on this board connect two points without a bolded, highlighted line drawn for them? Why can no one distinguish between opinion and fact unless someone says "THIS IS AN OPINION, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES LISTED. HAD THIS BEEN AN ACTUAL FACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES. YOU MAY NOW RETURN TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED OPINION, ALREADY IN PROGRESS" The density on this message board could repel a nuclear warhead.

Opinions are views. Not assumed "facts." There are 32 teams and each had a draft board. Either one of our receivers was higher then 50 or it wasn't. You said it wasn't. That's not an opinion, that's making up a fact which you would need to support. You then used it in your argument to support your "opinion" further demonstrating your need to support it.

OK, so what we've boiled your whole post down to is your opinion is we drafted receivers and shouldn't have. You have no facts to support that, only an opinion those facts would exist if you had them. Got it, an education every day!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:The argument is that the Redskins did not draft the best player, regardless of position. The Redskins drafted the best player on their draft board, regardless of position. The argument is also that the Redskins draft board may have ranked Thomas and Davis, but the initial draft plan was to start with Kelly and go from there. The Redskins fully expected a run on wide receivers that never happened, which is how and why they traded down and still drafted three receivers with their first three selections. The other argument is that no other team had any of these three, Thomas, Davis or Kelly, rated higher than #50 on their draft boards. Why? Is Vinny a genius? Are the other GM's stupid? Are these players defective? Everyone knows receivers are a risky draft pick, but not one of these three was ranked higher than #50 on any other team's draft board? Conclusion: The Redskins were targeting receivers, regardless of talent level, and regardless of the best available players remaining.

You haven't established this conclusion. To PulpExposure's point you assume facts not in evidence that we rated them all higher then everyone else. Even if true, that we rated them higher then everyone else, the only argument made, does not establish the claim in your conclusion our rating was "reardless of talent level" as you pulled out of your...ear.

Basically what you're arguing is that if you can find any pattern in any draft board, like our drafting 3 pass catchers in a row, talent was ignored. That's all the evidence required. That's nonsense.

That's not the extent of the argument, you didn't read the initial post, as evidenced by your post, and I refuse to argue half of the argument. Read the entire initial post, and then argue. Everyone knows you're going to argue. Could it at least be all of the points in the post, instead of selected ones in a reply to a reply to the initial post? Or is that too much to ask?

Have to agree with Pod here.

Obviously the FO thought the guys we drafted were the better players in THEIR draft board.

Unless someone here has access to the list made by Snyder and Vinny, we can safely deduce this by the fact that they were selected by Washington.

You all seem to be arguing about nothing. No one here knows what the front office's strategy was, but we do know how it played out. And in a couple weeks we will get to see if they were successful. Until then, ya'll are just arguing to hear yourselves talk.

cvillehog wrote:You all seem to be arguing about nothing. No one here knows what the front office's strategy was, but we do know how it played out. And in a couple weeks we will get to see if they were successful. Until then, ya'll are just arguing to hear yourselves talk.

Here comes a short post.

What I am asking myself is: Why did no other teams take a chance on any of these three prospects? Is it that they just aren't as talented as we hope they are? Or is it that Cerrato really is smarter than everyone else, as Dan Snyder would lead us to believe?

cvillehog wrote:Until then, ya'll are just arguing to hear yourselves
talk.

Dude, thats how we role around here. That how we do.

GSPODS wrote:

cvillehog wrote:You all seem to be arguing about nothing. No one here knows what the front office's strategy was, but we do know how it played out. And in a couple weeks we will get to see if they were successful. Until then, ya'll are just arguing to hear yourselves talk.

Here comes a short post.

What I am asking myself is: Why did no other teams take a chance on any of these three prospects? Is it that they just aren't as talented as we hope they are? Or is it that Cerrato really is smarter than everyone else, as Dan Snyder would lead us to believe?

No one knows if they are good or not, so how can we even speculate whether it was a good decision on our part to get them in the second or everyone else to pass on them? The decision is only "bad" if ears from now, they haven't made an impact. To say after a couple of pre-season games in their rookie season is just talking for the sake of talking.

We don't know what was on ANY GM's board, but we DO know what was posted by "experts" from various publecations. Many had some or all of our 2nd rnd picks as 1st rounders. If Zorn thought our WR's were that bad, he wouldn't have stated that the rookies would be on the bench.

JansenFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

cvillehog wrote:You all seem to be arguing about nothing. No one here knows what the front office's strategy was, but we do know how it played out. And in a couple weeks we will get to see if they were successful. Until then, ya'll are just arguing to hear yourselves talk.

Here comes a short post.

What I am asking myself is: Why did no other teams take a chance on any of these three prospects? Is it that they just aren't as talented as we hope they are? Or is it that Cerrato really is smarter than everyone else, as Dan Snyder would lead us to believe?

No one knows if they are good or not, so how can we even speculate whether it was a good decision on our part to get them in the second or everyone else to pass on them? The decision is only "bad" if ears from now, they haven't made an impact. To say after a couple of pre-season games in their rookie season is just talking for the sake of talking.

Yes, it's talking for the sake of talking. Since no one here has first-hand knowledge of how things were done, it's also speculation. Until the Redskins are playing for keeps, meaning playing a meaningful regular season game, what else is there to do? Rehash the same discussions we've been having? We could, but I thought a new one would be a change of pace. And this one is one we'll be having for the next two or three years, I would think. Maybe people think it's too early for this discussion.
Hell, I don't know. I've come to the conclusion that nobody here understands me, and I don't understand anybody here, and it's a wasted effort on anyone's part trying. I assume I came in from another planet recently. I must have, because no one on this planet "gets my meaning."

GSPODS wrote:

cvillehog wrote:You all seem to be arguing about nothing. No one here knows what the front office's strategy was, but we do know how it played out. And in a couple weeks we will get to see if they were successful. Until then, ya'll are just arguing to hear yourselves talk.

Here comes a short post.

What I am asking myself is: Why did no other teams take a chance on any of these three prospects? Is it that they just aren't as talented as we hope they are? Or is it that Cerrato really is smarter than everyone else, as Dan Snyder would lead us to believe?

I'll help you with this one.....

A lot of teams had bigger needs at positions that these prospects don't play.

The Lions drafted three recievers in the first round three years in a row, no way they could take a WR one day one in year four.

Gregg came down here, so the Jags won't be drafting on "O" for years to come. Talk about a draft, they traded up in the 1st for a DE and then made a move to pick up another one. I was thinking that we could have used either of them. Turns out one is not all that hot and the other isn't even under contract yet and has yet to hit the practice field let alone play in a "meanless" game.

And finally you had teams that were already top heavy at WR.

There are lost of reasons why other teams didn't go after pass catchers. There are lots of qestions you could be asking yourself but with that being the one, it should raise others.

GSPODS wrote:Yes, it's talking for the sake of talking. Since no one here has first-hand knowledge of how things were done, it's also speculation. Until the Redskins are playing for keeps, meaning playing a meaningful regular season game, what else is there to do? Rehash the same discussions we've been having? We could, but I thought a new one would be a change of pace. And this one is one we'll be having for the next two or three years, I would think. Maybe people think it's too early for this discussion.
Hell, I don't know. I've come to the conclusion that nobody here understands me, and I don't understand anybody here, and it's a wasted effort on anyone's part trying. I assume I came in from another planet recently. I must have, because no one on this planet "gets my meaning."

There's nothing wrong with discussion - probably what nobody likes is someone taking a FINITE stance on something that is PURELY conjecture, and then going to the nth degree and defensively claiming that obviously anyone that doesn't see it that way is insane or just wrong.

You can't have a 'discussion' when one of the participants is closed-minded; you can only go around and around in circles making the same points only with (usually) more spite and venom.

To me, that isn't discussion.

No one can say that Devin Thomas is a bust, nobody can say exactly what the FO was executing, but nobody can state with any certainty that the contrary is true in each instance. It's fine to discuss what your opinion of it is, but accept that if you're truly going to discuss something, then you have to be a lot less concerned with who's right and wrong.