Page 4 of 5

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:34 am
by GSPODS
1niksder 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. :shock:

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.


OK. I'll go along with your post. There were quite a few wide receivers after all, and none were considered the next Randy Moss, so I could easily see other teams seeing higher priority or more value in other prospects. But is it also possible that not a single team needed a tight end? Not even a backup tight end for the future? It just seems to me that something is screwy. Maybe it's me that's screwy.

Anyway, I hope Vinny Cerrato is the genius Dan Snyder thinks he is.
I hope all three top picks and the others turn out to be good Redskins players for years to come. I hope the Redskins win 12 games this season.
I'm just not expecting any of it. Over 50 years of being a Redskins fan tells me not to set myself up for disappointment.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:37 pm
by El Mexican
GSPODS wrote:
1niksder 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. :shock:

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.


OK. I'll go along with your post. There were quite a few wide receivers after all, and none were considered the next Randy Moss, so I could easily see other teams seeing higher priority or more value in other prospects. But is it also possible that not a single team needed a tight end? Not even a backup tight end for the future? It just seems to me that something is screwy. Maybe it's me that's screwy.

Anyway, I hope Vinny Cerrato is the genius Dan Snyder thinks he is.
I hope all three top picks and the others turn out to be good Redskins players for years to come. I hope the Redskins win 12 games this season.
I'm just not expecting any of it. Over 50 years of being a Redskins fan tells me not to set myself up for disappointment.
We should just stick to the facts: The FO took the best players in their draft board. This is a fact.

The other 31 teams (some even picked twice before we traded down) obvioulsy thought they didn´t need the players we drafted. If they did, they would have taken them. This is a fact. It´s irrelevant if they picked by position or simply by best player available.

Does anything else matter, really?

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:49 pm
by 1niksder
GSPODS wrote:OK. I'll go along with your post.


That might be a first :wink:


GSPODS wrote:There were quite a few wide receivers after all, and none were considered the next Randy Moss, so I could easily see other teams seeing higher priority or more value in other prospects.

Well there were fourteen lineman taken in the first round in the past draft, with eight on the offensive side of the ball including the first overall pick. Most teams obviously went for needs early, and teams like Atlanta and the Ratbirds went with someone to throw the ball although they could use WRs but what would have been the point.

GSPODS wrote:But is it also possible that not a single team needed a tight end? Not even a backup tight end for the future? It just seems to me that something is screwy. Maybe it's me that's screwy.


Teams looking for second TEs normally target those that are good blockers and generally don't use high picks on them.


GSPODS wrote:Anyway, I hope Vinny Cerrato is the genius Dan Snyder thinks he is.

Now ther has to be something better to hope for. How many times has "the Danny" been wrong? And we are talking about Vinny C. here. I hope we got luck with what they did.


GSPODS wrote:I hope all three top picks and the others turn out to be good Redskins players for years to come.


Now I'm agreeing with you :?

GSPODS wrote:I hope the Redskins win 12 games this season.


I hope they win 19 :shock:

GSPODS wrote:I'm just not expecting any of it. Over 50 years of being a Redskins fan tells me not to set myself up for disappointment.


I hope we aren't disappointed

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:53 pm
by PulpExposure
GSPODS wrote: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.


That means 1 receiver was taken before Thomas. Is it perhaps likely that if the Skins drafted someone else at 34, that Thomas would have been taken in lieu of one of the other guys you've listed?

I think it's quite probable, since most draft boards had Thomas as the #1 WR in the class.

GSPODS wrote: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.


Perhaps it's time to grace another message board with your wisdom if this board frustrates you so much.

The heart of what I was pointing out is how you post your "argument" with statements that make it seem less of an opinion, and more factual in nature. From my shrivelled-hearted attorney viewpoint, you have a tendency to write these types of posts as if you're advocating, but...remember, you're just posting your opinion, which is as ill-formed as anyone else's. This is a webboard, not a courtroom.

GSPODS wrote:Or is it that Cerrato really is smarter than everyone else, as Dan Snyder would lead us to believe?


For what it's worth, Cerrato had a pretty good track record drafting in San Francisco.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:27 pm
by GSPODS
PulpExposure wrote:
Perhaps it's time to grace another message board with your wisdom if this board frustrates you so much.

The heart of what I was pointing out is how you post your "argument" with statements that make it seem less of an opinion, and more factual in nature. From my shrivelled-hearted attorney viewpoint, you have a tendency to write these types of posts as if you're advocating, but...remember, you're just posting your opinion, which is as ill-formed as anyone else's. This is a webboard, not a courtroom.


First and foremost, it shouldn't be necessary to use the words "I think" or "In my opinion" on every thought or every post. This is a message board. It's all opinion. Even known or accepted facts accompanied by sources and links are surrounded by opinions. Facts usually include supporting evidence. Opinions usually don’t. I won't say there are Zero posts on THN which are entirely factual. I will say one has to look hard to find them. I will say that 98 of every 100 posts is entirely opinion. One has to be fairly small-minded to assume that because a statement isn't expressly spelled out as an opinion, the author is stating something as fact.

“I think…” Well, of course. That is how it got to be in a post. Someone thought it, and then it went from mental statement to verbal statement in the form of a message board post. It isn’t necessary to say that it was a thought first, and a post second, unless you’re attempting to communicate with people so limited in mental capacity that they are unable to connect that everything is a thought first, and a post second.
“My opinion is…” I hope so, because posting other people’s opinions without sourcing them is a big no-no. This is another unnecessary statement, except to those who can’t connect the simplest of dots. Opinionated thoughts dominate message board posts.

So, “I think” and “My opinion is” should be assumed on every post that isn’t supported by multiple sources. Even direct quotes should have two independent sources. With that in mind …

What I bring to this message board is the same thing that roughly 5,840 other members bring to this message board, which is opinion. And that's all I bring. Sugar-coating and beating around bushes are not my personality. So, if you or anyone else keeps expecting "Well, the Redskins could ... or they might ... or if this, that, and the other happens, then possibly..." That kind of weak-minded, impositional crap is a waste of everyone's time. I'm either going to be right or I'm going to be wrong in my opinions. But I'm not going to be a neutered, testosterone-lacking, middle of the road, try to get along with everyone and don't hurt feelings or offend sensibilities kind of person in this or any other lifetime.

I understand that not everyone is a language professor. Separating fact from opinion is the most basic skill in any form of communication. People can believe everything communicated to them, believe nothing communicated to them, or learn to separate fact from fiction. I refuse to be some weak-minded, limp-dicked, wet noodle just so people who have trouble distinguishing the differences will know that my posts are opinionated.

Now, then. We don't know who most draft boards had as the #1 wide receiver in the draft. We didn't see any of the actual draft boards. We only heard rumors from the so-called experts, who are usually wrong.

Cerrato supposedly having a decent track record of drafting in SF isn't even worth the paper it's printed on, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:58 pm
by 1niksder
GSPODS wrote:
Cerrato supposedly having a decent track record of drafting in SF isn't even worth the paper it's printed on, as far as I'm concerned.


Just to give you your favorite "out" I simply use your last statement to comment on the hold post.

You come off as stating fact and a few post have pointed this out to you. You reply with everything is a opinion and you shouldn't have to preface your statements with "I think". Maybe you shouldn't maybe you should.

I really don't care, I take what you post for what it's worth. Believe it or not somethings actually have substance to them, though few and far between your post sometimes go against the norm of your regular "contributions" and are logical.

Seems to me Vinny C's track record would be just that a record of what actually happened, you can even say factual. Your statement would tend to give other members the opinion that you are unconcerned with actual facts, and prefer to throw out your opinion and pass it off as fact to whoever iwill believe it.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:48 pm
by BnGhog
PulpExposure wrote:
GSPODS wrote: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.


That means 1 receiver was taken before Thomas. Is it perhaps likely that if the Skins drafted someone else at 34, that Thomas would have been taken in lieu of one of the other guys you've listed?

I think it's quite probable, since most draft boards had Thomas as the #1 WR in the class.

GSPODS wrote: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.


Perhaps it's time to grace another message board with your wisdom if this board frustrates you so much.

The heart of what I was pointing out is how you post your "argument" with statements that make it seem less of an opinion, and more factual in nature. From my shrivelled-hearted attorney viewpoint, you have a tendency to write these types of posts as if you're advocating, but...remember, you're just posting your opinion, which is as ill-formed as anyone else's. This is a webboard, not a courtroom.

GSPODS wrote:Or is it that Cerrato really is smarter than everyone else, as Dan Snyder would lead us to believe?


For what it's worth, Cerrato had a pretty good track record drafting in San Francisco.



:shock: STAFF!


Wow, nice? :hail: When that happen?

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:56 pm
by yupchagee
GSPODS wrote:
The Redskins passing offense was beyond anemic last season.

18th in Scoring, 15th in Total Yards Per Game, 14th in Passing Yards per Game,


14th in passing is not beyond anemic, in fact it is above the median.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:59 pm
by GSPODS
1niksder wrote:
GSPODS wrote:
Cerrato supposedly having a decent track record of drafting in SF isn't even worth the paper it's printed on, as far as I'm concerned.


Just to give you your favorite "out" I simply use your last statement to comment on the hold post.

You come off as stating fact and a few post have pointed this out to you. You reply with everything is a opinion and you shouldn't have to preface your statements with "I think". Maybe you shouldn't maybe you should.

I really don't care, I take what you post for what it's worth. Believe it or not somethings actually have substance to them, though few and far between your post sometimes go against the norm of your regular "contributions" and are logical.

Seems to me Vinny C's track record would be just that a record of what actually happened, you can even say factual. Your statement would tend to give other members the opinion that you are unconcerned with actual facts, and prefer to throw out your opinion and pass it off as fact to whoever iwill believe it.


IN MY OPINION, I THINK THE FOLLOWING:

In this particular case, I am stating an opinion that what Vinny Cerrato did for another team, before he was hired by Dan Snyder, has no bearing on how the players he drafted or helped draft for the Redskins will perform. That could also be taken as a fact. People with no criminal record commit murder all the time. People with long criminal histories are frequently accused of crimes they didn't commit. Track records don't mean as much as some people would like to think they mean.

A post is never about the words. A post is about how the reader interprets the words. I understand that very few people can make the connection between "Cerrato's track record with the '49ers means nothing" and "It means nothing because what we care about is the players he drafted for the Redskins." It seems like a logical connection to me. Logical enough that it shouldn't even require a post explaining it, but it does. Otherwise, "I come off as stating fact." Well, that is a fact. What Cerrato did with another team doesn't mean anything. Taking a post for what it's worth is the perfect strategy. If a post is worth nothing, then that is the way to take it. I read posts that are worth nothing to me all the time. I don't reply to them.

Posting in baby steps because people have to have every dot connected for them is ridiculous. Nobody understands my posts or thinks I'm posting facts because people can't connect separate posts in a thread on their own. It does really help to read entire threads, but I also understand many people don't have the time to read all of a thread. I still don't think it's my responsibility to connect all of my posts for someone who only reads the last post in the thread, and then takes it out of context of the rest of the thread. Almost everyone on this message board does exactly that, not only to me, but also to other members. Taking one post in a thread out of the context of the other posts in a thread, and then commenting on it is the easiest way to be confused. It's also the easiest way to get someone to drop a thread. Nobody wants to have to post the same thing twice so people who didn't read the entire thread can "catch up" on the discussion.

It isn't anyone elses fault I spend most of the day here and can read every post. It isn't my fault most people spend less than an hour here per day and have to pick and choose what to read and reply to. If people read entire threads instead of single posts, they would not think my posts were stated as fact. They would know they are stated as opinion, unless they have sources or links attached.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:00 pm
by yupchagee
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.


Avery had a lights out pro day. Hardy & Royal had excellent combines. A lot of people (including GM's) are over impressed with that.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:37 pm
by PulpExposure
BnGhog wrote: :shock: STAFF!


Wow, nice? :hail: When that happen?


Thanks. A few of us were brought on a couple weeks ago. Congrats to a motley crew, eh? :)

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:23 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
GSPODS wrote:If people read entire threads instead of single posts, they would not think my posts were stated as fact. They would know they are stated as opinion, unless they have sources or links attached.

Dude, this is nonsense, it's not that hard. Reading "all" your posts won't make anything any clearer to anyone. There are statements that are clearly opinion and statements that are clearly fact. When you make statements that are clearly opinion, there's no reason to say, "in my opinion." For example, you don't need to say, "In my opinion, what Vinnie did in SF is irrelevant." It was clearly an opinion. When you make statements like, "No one we drafted, including Devon Thomas, in the first two rounds was on anyone's draft board higher then 50...", it is a statement of fact. In that case if you are guessing a fact exists, it is in fact necessary to state this is an opinion. This is writing 101. And in your case you're actually using the opined "facts" to construct your argument. Since (assumed "fact" on Devon Thomas's placement on other draft boards) my opinion we drafted him too high is true. I'm not arguing this with you anymore, but your post rationalizing making up "facts" is BS.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:32 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
GSPODS wrote:
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?

That's the statement I was challenging. Explain to me why I have to address other statements in order to challenge that one. I've never observed that rule to have been applied on this board before, you must challenge all or none of someone's points, you cannot challange some of them. I've never observed you following this rule. I don't recall it in the Hogs rules that you must challenge all or none of people's points. You made a claim that we didn't consider talent in drafting pass catchers, I'm asking you to back it up, you haven't so far.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:43 pm
by GSPODS
yupchagee wrote:GSPODS wrote:
The Redskins passing offense was beyond anemic last season.

18th in Scoring, 15th in Total Yards Per Game, 14th in Passing Yards per Game,


14th in passing is not beyond anemic, in fact it is above the median.


Considering the Skins had to go on a four game tear to get to those rankings, I'd say they were mediocre. 16th or 17th would be truly mediocre in a 32 team league, would it not? 10.6 yards per game separated 14th from 18th last season. The 18th team was the Atlanta Falcons. That is not the company the Redskins want to be keeping in the passing game. I do think the passing game will improve this season, but I think the rushing game will suffer as a result and that the team will regress slightly from last season's "miracle" finish. Anemic may not have been the best word choice, but to my way of thinking anything less than 250 passing yards and two passing touchdowns per game is anemic.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:34 pm
by yupchagee
GSPODS wrote:
yupchagee wrote:GSPODS wrote:
The Redskins passing offense was beyond anemic last season.

18th in Scoring, 15th in Total Yards Per Game, 14th in Passing Yards per Game,


14th in passing is not beyond anemic, in fact it is above the median.


Considering the Skins had to go on a four game tear to get to those rankings, I'd say they were mediocre. 16th or 17th would be truly mediocre in a 32 team league, would it not? 10.6 yards per game separated 14th from 18th last season. The 18th team was the Atlanta Falcons. That is not the company the Redskins want to be keeping in the passing game. I do think the passing game will improve this season, but I think the rushing game will suffer as a result and that the team will regress slightly from last season's "miracle" finish. Anemic may not have been the best word choice, but to my way of thinking anything less than 250 passing yards and two passing touchdowns per game is anemic.



I didn't say it was great, just that calling the 14th best pass O "beyond anemic" makes no sense.

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:43 pm
by BossHog
Guys... see how Devin Tomas isn't even part of the discussions anymore - that would be because everyone's OFF TOPIC.

This is getting ridiculous - the rhetoric - the complete disregard for the rules etc - some of you just don't seem to be getting it.

So... suspensions, which will be followed by permanent bans... are coming. If you don't want to 'take the option' to follow the rules, then we'll judiciously enforce those rules to sanction you and perhaps ultimately, move you from the community should you decide that you would rather not comply.


Go ahead and push the volunteer staff's patience - the next step is just to get rid of the offenders. :up:

Note the smiley 'up' - I'll be happy to do it. :shock:

Easy, queasy, Japanesey.

Some of you are going to need to either learn to walk a little more softly, or just walk right on out of here.


The topic is Devin Thomas... thanks.

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:28 am
by Gibbs4Life
Get'em Boss!


Devin Thomas should get some reps with our first team in Carolina, I want to see some fight in him.

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:39 pm
by fleetus
All of that typing just to show us that you have never been able to understand the "best player available" theory. Whew. Your fingers must be tired! :lol:

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 ?


:roll:


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 Cooley. 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.

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:45 pm
by fleetus
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.


Well said. Too many people read a few draft rankings websites and assume there is a consensus without considering, does the team use man/man more than zone? do they like quick agile O-linemen like Denver or big Hogs like the Skins? Do they run smash-mouth or more cut-backs? or maybe they do run smash-mouth but have that guy already and want a RB with nice hands (Dallas - Felix Jones). Do they run 3-4 or 4-3? Maybe one of the coaches or scouts has a big "In" with the college this player came from and knows a lot more about his work ethic and character than Kiper? and 1,000 other questions. there is no consensus.

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:45 pm
by GSPODS
fleetus wrote:All of that typing just to show us that you have never been able to understand the "best player available" theory. Whew. Your fingers must be tired! :lol:


Best player available, my arse. The Skins couldn't have used Kenny Phillips? Seems like they've brought in everyone who can spell the word "safety" for a tryout.
Best player available on the Redskins receiver-loaded draft board.
So, to keep this on topic, let's just hope Devin Thomas is "all that and a bag of chips" or whatever it is that kids are saying that is supposed to mean better than expected. :up:

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:01 pm
by fleetus
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.


Well, then your opinion blows. :puke: You constantly over-simplify a very complex subject. 32 NFL Staffs all have a constantly moving target, their draft board. It changes every day based on dozens of different changing factors. Then the draft begins and based on which players come of the board, everyone's draft board changes, PICK BY PICK! Some teams are drafting completely for need while others are drafting more for draft value. Some teams will reach for the ONE position they had to have, some seemed to have reached but really had THAT player at the top of their board. For any of us to speculate that a player drafted 34th wasn't on anyone elses top 50 is just foolish. To even suggest that the Redskins were specifically targeting big WR's is pretty silly. I have no way of knowing, but based on comments from Snyder and Cerrato (plus a smidge of common sense) it seems they were at least intersted in DL's in the first two rounds, but several teams took DL's higher than expected and there wasn't a very strong group of DL's expected to be available later in the 1st though 2nd anyway. So unless one of a couple DL's fell to #21 (which didn't happen) they must have decided plan B was to drop down and get value in the 2nd, where a whole flock of WR's were expected to be available (Jordy Nelson, James Hardy, Early Doucet etc.) I think the draft unfolded in a fortuitous way for the Skins that they were able to snag two highly touted WR's instead of reaching for one DL at #21. All this other stuff about a consensus list of players and no one having Thomas or kelly rated in the top 50 is just nonsense.

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:22 pm
by fleetus
GSPODS wrote:
fleetus wrote:All of that typing just to show us that you have never been able to understand the "best player available" theory. Whew. Your fingers must be tired! :lol:


Best player available, my arse. The Skins couldn't have used Kenny Phillips? Seems like they've brought in everyone who can spell the word "safety" for a tryout.
Best player available on the Redskins receiver-loaded draft board.
So, to keep this on topic, let's just hope Devin Thomas is "all that and a bag of chips" or whatever it is that kids are saying that is supposed to mean better than expected. :up:


Again, you over-simplify, get hung up on semantics and completely miss the subtleties and nuances of the draft. "Best Player Available" is only a term used. It is not a regulation by which teams must follow strict guidelines of drafting. For most teams, "best player available" means they have several positions where the starter is highly questionable, several more positions where a rookie could compete for a starting job. and some positions where the starter is pro bowl level. So when they say "best player available" they mean, their not set on drafting ONLY the one or two positions they most need, they are open to drafting other positions IF a player significantly higher on their draft board falls into their lap.

To spell it out for you, since you seem to have difficulty, if a team drafts #21 and they have a choice of #10 on their draft board at a position of less need OR #20 on their draft board at the position most needed, they MIGHT choose the #10. Conversely, if the same scenario happened but it was #18 vs. #20, they MIGHT go ahead and pick the #20 player at the most needed position.

CAUTION: this is not a rule, only an example of how some teams perform when they SAY they are going to draft the best player available. It is different with every team in every draft because their needs vs. the players available AT THAT PICK are different every time.

NOTE: some teams say "best player available" because they want all the other teams in the draft to THINK they might draft any player, but since most all NFL GM's have healthy doses of common sense, they don't take these statements literally. I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes they shade the truth slightly.

All that said, the bottom line is when people say "best player available" we have no idea who they really thought the best player was before they drafted their player. All we know is, before the draft, most of us would have never thought we could have ended up with two highly touted WR's and the Mackey award winner. So we should all take a deep breathe and enjoy the upcoming season while giving the rookies a little time to adjust to the NFL.

Re: Devin Thomas Anyone?

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:25 pm
by 1niksder
Instead of locking thid thread, I'll repost the what started the thread.

Gibbs4Life wrote:Un-impressive. Thus far a bust...thus far. We shall see, but I remember reading that when devin and malcom we're healthy, malcom was the better of the two, alot of teams passed on this guy and are we starting to see why? Of course its too soon but we could have hoped for better. During the game someone mentioned Devin looked Westbrook-esque and I will say there was a play on special teams where devin and another redskin were around the ball after it had been kicked and I saw the player put his arm out to help keep devin from touching the ball and I saw thomas slap his own teammate's arm the way player usually slap at the opposition I didn't appreciate that, or after the near completion to him on the sideline he got up and walked very non-chalant like.
In devin we are facing an increasingly problematic situation in the NFL, that is a guy who has recieved alot of money for ZERO pro production. A 4 year deal, for what? burning the buckeyes? Please. This kid has a long way to go and it's going to be even longer if he doesn't take the right approach and attitude towards professionalism.


That can be said for every player that was picked in the second round in this past draft. First rounder got more and it's only 5 year deals.

You can't call any 2008 draft pick a bust yet and it may takes years to find out.

Re: Devin Thomas Anyone?

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:30 pm
by GSPODS
1niksder wrote:Instead of locking thid thread, I'll repost the what started the thread.

You can't call any 2008 draft pick a bust yet and it may takes years to find out.


Agreed. Three seasons, minimum, for a wide receiver or a QB, I think.
That is one thing I'm not saying and haven't said anywhere. I completely disagree that Thomas is a bust. I also think that anyone of my generation expecting the same level of maturity from this generation is foolish. The things that we never would have even thought of doing, such as being late, forgetting simple rules, being unprepared, are commonplace now. That doesn't make them acceptable, but when I was Thomas' age I'd have gotten a lot more than a verbal warning. I'd have gotten a pink slip from an employer. Times change. Today, it just isn't that big an issue. Time to move on to getting Thomas and the other rookies up to game speed so they can do what they were drafted to do, help the Redskins win games.

My 2 cents

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:35 am
by crazyhorse1
My problem with Thomas is that he seems to slow down when he anticipates being hit. He looks terrible as a KR. I know it's too early to judge, but it's not too early to note that he looks bad in re. to desire and toughness. Maybe I'm wrong, but if were in charge, I'd find a way to keep McMullen and take a look around the league with the idea of swapping some receivers for linemen. I'd also look for new ways to get Cooley and Davis on the field at the same time.