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

To all of you who are complaining about this trade, and our draft.

Between the years 1984 and 1990, Joe Gibbs did not have a single 1st round pick. It was packaged in a trade that netted a good player or several picks.

During that span, Gibbs drafted players who went on to become All Time Great Skins. He also developed 2 championship teams without drafting a single 1st rounder. Monte Coleman was an 11th rounder.

So to all of you doubters...check the history...it just might tell you where we are going.

The Hogster wrote:To all of you young'ns...

Between the years 1982 and 1990, Joe Gibbs did not have a single 1st round pick.

So to all of you doubters...check the history...it just might tell you where we are going.

We drafted Darrell Green in 1983.

Typo...meant 1984

To all of you young'ns who are complaining about this trade, and our draft.

Between the years 1982 and 1990, Joe Gibbs did not have a single 1st round pick. It was packaged in a trade that netted a good player or several picks.

During that span, Gibbs drafted players who went on to become All Time Great Skins. He also developed 2 championship teams without a single 1st rounder. Monte Coleman was an 11th rounder.

So to all of you doubters...check the history...it just might tell you where we are going.

During that time Gibbs also had a GM who had a knack for finding late round gems (possibly b/c they almost never had a 1rst rounder). We don't have one of those and haven't in a very long time (look at Gibbs last 2 drafts and all of Snyders drafts). The jury is still out on whether Gibbs can find late round talent or not. Lets hope you're right an I'm wrong for the good of the team.

THANK YOU HOGSTER!!!!!!! Its about time someone said that as well as you did. All of us NFL nerds sit here and think that just because we've watched a lot of football or won our Fantasy league that we know whats best for the team. One thing about Gibbs that I want all of you to remember:

THIS AINT HIS FIRST RODEO!!!!!!!!!

The Hogster wrote:Typo...meant 1984

I still got the point. Good post.

thaiphoon wrote:

To all of you young'ns who are complaining about this trade, and our draft.

Between the years 1982 and 1990, Joe Gibbs did not have a single 1st round pick. It was packaged in a trade that netted a good player or several picks.

During that span, Gibbs drafted players who went on to become All Time Great Skins. He also developed 2 championship teams without a single 1st rounder. Monte Coleman was an 11th rounder.

So to all of you doubters...check the history...it just might tell you where we are going.

During that time Gibbs also had a GM who had a knack for finding late round gems (possibly b/c they almost never had a 1rst rounder). We don't have one of those and haven't in a very long time (look at Gibbs last 2 drafts and all of Snyders drafts). The jury is still out on whether Gibbs can find late round talent or not. Lets hope you're right an I'm wrong for the good of the team.

He did find ey unless third round isn't late, and I like the MLB we got. You all know who I feel about the first round.

He did find ey unless third round isn't late, and I like the MLB we got. You all know who I feel about the first round

Some may consider 3rd round as a late round but not me. I consider any round that falls on the second day of the draft to be late round. Thats just me though. Other opinions may vary

The Hogster wrote:To all of you who are complaining about this trade, and our draft.

Between the years 1984 and 1990, Joe Gibbs did not have a single 1st round pick. It was packaged in a trade that netted a good player or several picks.

During that span, Gibbs drafted players who went on to become All Time Great Skins. He also developed 2 championship teams without drafting a single 1st rounder. Monte Coleman was an 11th rounder.

So to all of you doubters...check the history...it just might tell you where we are going.

just to play devils advocate. this was all done in the past, the era where there was no such thing as free agency

The more important thing is that that was done before the advent of 24/7 information.

In 1991, anyone taken after round four had fans scratching their heads. Now people are arguing over UDFA's.

In the past it was much more possible for a scout to find someone and truly get a "steal". Now, everyone who follows the draft closely can spew out stats on D-III players from St. Johns. Beathard did his homework better than almost anyone else. Now, people do the homework for the average GM.

curveball wrote:The more important thing is that that was done before the advent of 24/7 information.

In 1991, anyone taken after round four had fans scratching their heads. Now people are arguing over UDFA's.

In the past it was much more possible for a scout to find someone and truly get a "steal". Now, everyone who follows the draft closely can spew out stats on D-III players from St. Johns. Beathard did his homework better than almost anyone else. Now, people do the homework for the average GM.

and curveball u know why your last statment is so true. the modern era of the information age and computers. i doubt Coach Gibbs has been introduced Coach(give every player,coach and assistant a laptop) Bellick

There is a big difference between the first Gibbs era and now. They didn't have ti worry about free agency back then. Nowadays with free agency and a salary cap, building through the draft is more important than ever.

There is a big difference between the first Gibbs era and now. They didn't have ti worry about free agency back then. Nowadays with free agency and a salary cap, building through the draft is more important than ever.

Which is why it amazes me that we give our draft picks away like condoms at a free-clinic

You apologists for the Skins front office are beginning to sound a bit demented. The FO screwed up royally. It's not being disloyal to admit it. This off-season has brought almost nothing but mismanagement and bungling on a scale that is almost unprecedented by the Skins management. This is worse than the Brunell move, worse than the George and Deon fiasco.

Losses: Pierce, Smoot, Williams, Heath Miller, Coles, Courtney Brown, draft picks, harmony, millions in cap hits

Gains: Patten, Rabach, Campbell, Rogers, Moss, McCune, White, Broughton

Note that if it weren't for the losses we would have NO holes and six potential pro bowlers for the coming season. Note that because of our brilliant moves we have six fewer pro bowl candidates and holes at DE, WR, and TE, as well as a possible problem at MLB. Further, if I were Ramsey's agent, after this year, we would have a huge hole at QB. There's no reason for Patrick to show one iota of loyalty after this crap.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You apologists for the Skins front office are beginning to sound a bit demented. The FO screwed up royally. It's not being disloyal to admit it. This off-season has brought almost nothing but mismanagement and bungling on a scale that is almost unprecedented by the Skins management. This is worse than the Brunell move, worse than the George and Deon fiasco.

Losses: Pierce, Smoot, Williams, Heath Miller, Coles, Courtney Brown, draft picks, harmony, millions in cap hits

Gains: Patten, Rabach, Campbell, Rogers, Moss, McCune, White, Broughton

Note that if it weren't for the losses we would have NO holes. Note that because of our brilliant moves we have holes at DE, WR, and TE, as well as a possible problem at MLB. Further, if I were Ramsey's agent, after this year, we would have a huge hole at QB. There's no reason for Patrick to show one iota of loyalty after this crap.

We don't have holes at WR or TE, and Patrick will stay for money and because he earned his stripes here, and because he wants to win superbowls...

crazyhorse1 wrote:You apologists for the Skins front office are beginning to sound a bit demented. The FO screwed up royally. It's not being disloyal to admit it. This off-season has brought almost nothing but mismanagement and bungling on a scale that is almost unprecedented by the Skins management. This is worse than the Brunell move, worse than the George and Deon fiasco.

Losses: Pierce, Smoot, Williams, Heath Miller, Coles, Courtney Brown, draft picks, harmony, millions in cap hits

Gains: Patten, Rabach, Campbell, Rogers, Moss, McCune, White, Broughton

Note that if it weren't for the losses we would have NO holes. Note that because of our brilliant moves we have holes at DE, WR, and TE, as well as a possible problem at MLB. Further, if I were Ramsey's agent, after this year, we would have a huge hole at QB. There's no reason for Patrick to show one iota of loyalty after this crap.

Have you ever heard of the salary cap? I don't think we could afford Pierce, Smoot, and Brown without releasing some key guys. Therefore, we would have holes. Lets wait and see about the draft picks before we get all emotional about it "Manfreda style."

statboy wrote:

The Hogster wrote:To all of you who are complaining about this trade, and our draft.

Between the years 1984 and 1990, Joe Gibbs did not have a single 1st round pick. It was packaged in a trade that netted a good player or several picks.

During that span, Gibbs drafted players who went on to become All Time Great Skins. He also developed 2 championship teams without drafting a single 1st rounder. Monte Coleman was an 11th rounder.

So to all of you doubters...check the history...it just might tell you where we are going.

just to play devils advocate. this was all done in the past, the era where there was no such thing as free agency

Yeah,and the draft also had 12 rounds. What's your point? You can't call Heath Miller a loss, we never had him. We have a stud at H-Back...we don't use a TE in the traditional sense. If we had Heath, he would play H-Back, not TE. Our TE is not used as a primary receiver, so why draft him in the first round?

I would go on and on, but all of this has been said numerous times.

The only way your team fails in free agency is if you follow the plan that you propose. We can't sign every superstar, the salary cap won't allow it. So when Gibbs builds a blue collar team, observe dthe end result before you cry and moan about the lack of 'stars' in your opinion.

Sorry I stopped reading when I got to here :

We don't have holes at WR

Which team are we talking about here ?

We don't have holes at WR or TE, and Patrick will stay for money and because he earned his stripes here, and because he wants to win superbowls...[/quote]
Are you joking, we have huge holes at reciever and Te. As Ramsey is concerened remember Smoot and Pierce both wanted to stay here. I am not saying he is liar and Ramsey doesn't, but a lot of people say they want to stay and as soon as they are a free agent boom there gone.

This is just silly. It's basic statistics that the 1st round picks are inherently better than later roungs. It's irrefutable. Furhter, the draft is much more important than before because of the cap. You need, as a team, to have a constant source of cheaper talent.



wonker

wonker wrote:This is just silly. It's basic statistics that the 1st round picks are inherently better than later roungs. It's irrefutable. Furhter, the draft is much more important than before because of the cap. You need, as a team, to have a constant source of cheaper talent.



wonker

I hope you are kidding. Irrefutable?

Statistics? There is no science to the draft. It is common sense that if you have a first round draft pick, you will have a greater liklihood of selecting the player that you have rated as one of the top 32 players. That is obvious. The problem is that the ratings of the players are often innaccurate.

It is ridiculous to think that that team with the most 1st rounders will be the best teams to a mathematic certainty.

I guess Rod Gardner, David Terrell and Charles Rogers, Desmond Howard, Micheal Westbrook etc are better than Terrell Owens, Hines Ward, Mushin Muhammad, Joe Horn, who were drafted in the 4th, 6th, 2nd, and 5th rounds respectively.

[quote="The Hogster"][quote="wonker"]This is just silly. It's basic statistics that the 1st round picks are inherently better than later roungs. It's irrefutable. Furhter, the draft is much more important than before because of the cap. You need, as a team, to have a constant source of cheaper talent.



wonker[/quote]

I hope you are kidding. Irrefutable?

Statistics? There is no science to the draft. It is common sense that if you have a first round draft pick, you will have a greater liklihood of selecting the player that you have rated as one of the top 32 players. That is obvious. The problem is that the ratings of the players are often innaccurate.

It is ridiculous to think that that team with the most 1st rounders will be the best teams to a mathematic certainty.

I guess Rod Gardner, David Terrell and Charles Rogers, Desmond Howard, Micheal Westbrook etc are better than Terrell Owens, Hines Ward, Mushin Muhammad, Joe Horn, who were drafted in the 4th, 6th, 2nd, and 5th rounds respectively.[/quote]

This is exactly my point, it's easy to find the exception to the norm But in the end statistics win. Look at the best at each position:

QB: Manning, McNabb, Farve, Brady, Vick. The overwhelming percentage is from the first round.
RB: James, Alexander, Priest, Dillon, Jamal Lewis. Same thing.

This goes on for EVERY position. Of course you can find the exceptions like Brady, and Owens. But for the overwhelmng part the best players are drafted higher.



wonker

Your point would probably have a little more impact if three of the last four superbowls weren't won by the QB that wasn't drafted in the first round.

[quote="General Failure"]Your point would probably have a little more impact if three of the last four superbowls weren't won by the QB that wasn't drafted in the first round.[/quote]

You see, this totally misses my point. Brady was picked in the what? Sixth round? How many other 6th round QBs make it to contribute to a team? Very few. The percentage of 6th rounders who contribute is less than 5th rounders, decidedly less than 4th rounders and absurdly less than 1st rounders.



wonker

I didn't miss your point. I'm just saying it's hard to agree with it when the guy that's clearly the best at his position right now was an afterthought.