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

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6056170


Interesting story, depending on what side of the fence you are on about the Redskins free agent aquisitions.

The article is garbage. Lloyd is not a bust yet and Duckett is yet to be seen either. Another "sports writer" trying to make time go by in his office.

They are busts. I would also add Carter and AA to that list. The only new addition that has done anything has been Randle El.

Should I bother to read this article, or do I smell the unmistakeable aroma of bovine waste product?

so far they are bust, this article is 100 percent true So Far. Especially David Patten he was suppose to be a starter, not a 4th reciever.

John Manfreda wrote:so far they are bust, this article is 100 percent true So Far.

I've been saying this for quite a while. The Duckett aquisition was just screaming panic and Atlanta jumped all over it.

I wasn't aware of two draft picks for Lloyd though. That's interesting. Especially, when you've got Rookie Free agents like Colston tearing up the NFL.

There's no such thing as a bust "so far." You're either a bust or you are not. . .and 5 games doesn't make or break that distinction. Call them unproductive or whatever you want. . .but "bust" is a final term that should be reserved for players who have had all the chances they could get to produce--and fell short.

Otherwise, about 90% of the players in the league every year are "busts."

Point well taken. In Lloyd's case, the article mentions he signed a long-term contract. Meaning he's going to be here a while. If he's still unproductive a year from now, when he and presumably the rest of the offense is more familiar with Saunders' system, then maybe we can start wondering whether he was a bust.

As for Duckett, I think Gibbs is exactly right. Call it a panic move if you like, but no one could say for sure during training camp whether Portis would be healthy or not. Given that the Redskins expected to contend for a Super Bowl this year, they were forced to either fill what appeared to be a gaping hole -- and pay a premium price for doing so -- or run the risk of forfeiting their entire season before it had even begun. Thankfully, Portis wasn't hurt as badly as feared and Duckett hasn't been needed -- yet. But even if he's never used, I don't fault the Redskins in this case for going out and buying an expensive insurance policy.

Regarding the others, Patten was a starter last year until he was injured and, although he wasn't as productive as we might have wished, a lot of that could also be attributed to his unfamiliarity with a new system and Brunell's love affair with Santana Moss. Personally, whatever he's costing us, I like having him around because he's probably the closest thing we have on the team to Moss and would be the logical replacement if Moss were hurt -- God forbid. Archuletta and Carter, like Lloyd, will be around for several more years. I'm not going to label them busts just because they haven't played like Pro Bowlers in their first five games in a Redskin uniform. I recall a lot of people were calling Casey Rabach a bust last year, but now that he's more comfortable, he's playing pretty well. Sometimes it just takes time.

Irn-Bru wrote:There's no such thing as a bust "so far." You're either a bust or you are not. . .and 5 games doesn't make or break that distinction. Call them unproductive or whatever you want. . .but "bust" is a final term that should be reserved for players who have had all the chances they could get to produce--and fell short.

So according to your description Ryan Leaf is epitomy of a true "bust". In this case, I classify Lloyd and Duckett as reaches.

Irn-Bru wrote:There's no such thing as a bust "so far." You're either a bust or you are not. . .and 5 games doesn't make or break that distinction. Call them unproductive or whatever you want. . .but "bust" is a final term that should be reserved for players who have had all the chances they could get to produce--and fell short.

Otherwise, about 90% of the players in the league every year are "busts."

Nice try, but I think your 'eternal optimism' is muddying the waters. Of course you can argue the idea of "a bust so far", it's called evaluating on performance, and when your performance thru 1/3 of the season is extrapolated out to a full season statistically or otherwise, and your numbers equal that of a 'bust'....then you, by definition, are going to be viewed as a bust. Even if it's only temporary.

A bust can absolutely describe less than an entire career. In our case, it describes the return on investment of these players specifically as it affects our team-this year. Many of our big add players ROI has in deed been a bust....'so far'.

Maybe we should say...they look like a bust....or they have played like a bust up until now....

Is this ok? Will you let these examples slide?

Dangerfield wrote:Nice try, but I think your 'eternal optimism' is muddying the waters. Of course you can argue the idea of "a bust so far", it's called evaluating on performance, and when your performance thru 1/3 of the season is extrapolated out to a full season statistically or otherwise, and your numbers equal that of a 'bust'....then you, by definition, are going to be viewed as a bust. Even if it's only temporary.

How about we call Santana a "bust this week" when he doesn't play well; or why don't we say that Sean Taylor was "a bust on that play" when he let the receiver slip through?

You say in the same sentence that a bust is judged on performance and that you have to extrapolate in order to get the relevant data for that kind of evaluation. (In other words, you're admitting that you have to make stuff up!) This is exactly why I'm saying you can't use the term "so far."

It's kind of like determining whether or not I've got a beard on my chin or simply a few hairs. After all, it looks like I've got a great "beard" growing "so far", as I haven't shaved since this morning. . .and if we extrapolate to the end of next week using today as the example. . .well, I'll have a pretty good-sized beard. Therefore, as of right now, I am a bearded man.

. . .At least until I shave again, and prove any beard-haters wrong that I've been bearded "so far."

Or, we can wait for another few days to see if I've shaved, and if I still haven't then I'll be that much more on the way to having a beard.

(All of this is hypothetical, of course, as I seem to lack the capacity to grow a beard).


I see what you're saying, but I don't buy it. Nor do I think that my optimism is muddying much here. It's fickle and lazy to call any new player a bust only five games into the year. I'm going to wait and see what happens.

SkinzCanes wrote:They are busts. I would also add Carter and AA to that list. The only new addition that has done anything has been Randle El.

you are a moron if you think that AA is a bust, he's our best blitzer so farthis year is like 2nd on the team in tackles....he's been awesome..

uh, i feel weird saying this, but i totally agree with "irn-bru" (what the crap does that name mean, anyhow?). you can't declare someone a "bust" after 5 games! is jason campbell a bust? it's been well over 5 games since we drafted him. is rex grossman a bust? he barely played 5 games his first 3 years in the league.

additionally, one has to have had a lot of value spent on them to even qualify for "bust" candidacy. a high draft pick and/or a big contract. david patten has a very modest contract (don't let the "5 years, 13 million dollars" fool you, that's all back-loaded like every contract, and will never be paid), so even if he never plays for the skins again he can't be considered a "bust".

Jeff Rhodes wrote:Point well taken. In Lloyd's case, the article mentions he signed a long-term contract. Meaning he's going to be here a while. If he's still unproductive a year from now, when he and presumably the rest of the offense is more familiar with Saunders' system, then maybe we can start wondering whether he was a bust.

Not to turn this into (yet another) Brunell thread, but personally I won't be assessing Lloyd until after he's had a chance to catch balls from someone other than our current QB. QBs matter. Some undrafted no-name WR (Bernard Berrian) is leading the league (with 2 others) in receiving TDs and is third in the league in yards (with a sick 21.7 yrds/catch average) up in Chicago because Grossman finally got healthy and found his groove.

As for Duckett, I think Gibbs is exactly right. Call it a panic move if you like, but no one could say for sure during training camp whether Portis would be healthy or not. Given that the Redskins expected to contend for a Super Bowl this year, they were forced to either fill what appeared to be a gaping hole -- and pay a premium price for doing so -- or run the risk of forfeiting their entire season before it had even begun. Thankfully, Portis wasn't hurt as badly as feared and Duckett hasn't been needed -- yet. But even if he's never used, I don't fault the Redskins in this case for going out and buying an expensive insurance policy.

Didn't we already have Betts, Cartright, and Sellers?!? Losing Portis would've been tough, no doubt, but 'forfeiting the entire season'?!? Please. The Patriots won two titles with Antowain Smith, who was only a good, but never great, back. Philly got to the SB with a suspect running game - Westbrook rarely carries more than 20 a game, and he's fragile as all get out. Had Portis been out for a good part of the season, I think Betts and Cartwright could've shouldered the load adequately. So far, Duckett's contributed 5 carries for 24 yards, and only dressed for 2 games! And we've only got him for a year (as of now)! For this we gave up a 3rd rounder?!?!

Regarding the others, Patten was a starter last year until he was injured and, although he wasn't as productive as we might have wished, a lot of that could also be attributed to his unfamiliarity with a new system and Brunell's love affair with Santana Moss. Personally, whatever he's costing us, I like having him around because he's probably the closest thing we have on the team to Moss and would be the logical replacement if Moss were hurt -- God forbid. Archuletta and Carter, like Lloyd, will be around for several more years. I'm not going to label them busts just because they haven't played like Pro Bowlers in their first five games in a Redskin uniform. I recall a lot of people were calling Casey Rabach a bust last year, but now that he's more comfortable, he's playing pretty well. Sometimes it just takes time.

Carter's got 1(!) sack, 8 tackles, and 2 assists. Not a great start. Arch has 31 tackles, 4 assists, and 1 sack, but looks like a liability in coverage. I'm not making any judgment on those guys yet, but so far, they haven't shown much.

you are a moron if you think that AA is a bust, he's our best blitzer so farthis year is like 2nd on the team in tackles....he's been awesome..

You think AA has been awesome. You must be a Vikings or Cowboys fan because AA has only been awesome for the teams that we have played against. AA has been a crappy blitzer so far this season, getting picked up easily just about every time he's done it. The reason that he has so many tackles is because he has gotten beat so often in pass coverage.

As for calling people busts this early in the season.....I think that LLoyd still has a chance to turn things around so I was perhaps too harsh on him. But Carter is a total bust IMO. He has shown no ability whatsoever and has been a non-factor all season long. He looks much more suited to be a linbacker in a 3-4 defense than a defensive end.

In my opinion, getting nothing from a player on your roster, you know, making him INACTIVE.....means that he HAS BEEN A BUST FOR YOUR TEAM......


I don't know how many times you need to get punched in the head IRN BRU, until you finally realize that you are in a fight, but I have a habit of recognizing a skunk when I smell it....even if he has a Skins Jersey on....your argument is based on NOTHING, and you, my friend, have posted irrelevant drivel here tonight.....

Dangerfield wrote:In my opinion, getting nothing from a player on your roster, you know, making him INACTIVE.....means that he HAS BEEN A BUST FOR YOUR TEAM......


I don't know how many times you need to get punched in the head IRN BRU, until you finally realize that you are in a fight, but I have a habit of recognizing a skunk when I smell it....even if he has a Skins Jersey on....your argument is based on NOTHING, and you, my friend, have posted irrelevant drivel here tonight.....

Then I agree with the drivelling man. His argument made sense to me, and even came with a nice simple analogy for us all to understand.

Clearly though, the problem here is that we have a different definition of the word "bust". What I suspect we all will agree on is that the new signings have been disappointing so far. The difference is that some are willing to throw them under the bus and label them as failures, whilst others are concerned at their lack of impact, but accept that a player can only be properly assessed after a reasonable time has passed.

Some might have labelled Doug Williams a bust until the playoffs started in 87/88.

UK Skins Fan wrote:... the problem here is that we have a different definition of the word "bust". What I suspect we all will agree on is that the new signings have been disappointing so far. The difference is that some are willing to throw them under the bus and label them as failures, whilst others are concerned at their lack of impact, but accept that a player can only be properly assessed after a reasonable time has passed.

Some might have labelled Doug Williams a bust until the playoffs started in 87/88.

Good post UK SF - clearly we have to get up pretty early in the morning - hopefully these guys will help us out this season in the more important games that are yet to be played.

You can't trust Fox with sports news or regular news. We are 5 games into the season in which Lloys is learnign a new offense, Patton was hurt and that's how it goes in the NFL - no one knew how good Santana was going to be. Ducket was insurance and he'll be free to go after this year.

cleg wrote: Ducket was insurance and he'll be free to go after this year.

A draft pick isn't exactly "Free" to let go. Unless, a conditional third round pick means nothing to your team. That's a mighty expensive insurance policy.

As for AA and Carter, when was the last time they put up solid numbers? 2002 was the last time Archuleta made over 100 tackles and that last time Carter had over 7 sacks in a season. Granted both have seen a bit of injuries, but, both have had at least one full season where they didn't produce.

Now, can you call those two a bust? You really can't say only 5 games in the season. Being that they are in new defensive scheme it still may take some time to adjust. In this case, it considered a "reach" to aquire to players who haven't produced solid numbers in the last 3 seasons.

Irn-Bru wrote:There's no such thing as a bust "so far." You're either a bust or you are not. . .and 5 games doesn't make or break that distinction. Call them unproductive or whatever you want. . .but "bust" is a final term that should be reserved for players who have had all the chances they could get to produce--and fell short.

Otherwise, about 90% of the players in the league every year are "busts."

I'm with you, bust means you've given up. These points of "bust so far" make no sense. No one who knows what they are talking about would completely give up on any of these guys who have all been successful in the past after 5 games and bust is not used in short term context. Bust means it's over, they suck and it's not going to change barring a miracle.

I'm with you, bust means you've given up. These points of "bust so far" make no sense. No one who knows what they are talking about would completely give up on any of these guys who have all been successful in the past after 5 games and bust is not used in short term context. Bust means it's over, they suck and it's not going to change barring a miracle.

Maybe you should check out their numbers from the past 5 years. Archuletta had over 100 tackels 4 years ago and since then his numbers have declined, bottoming out at only 53 tackles last season. Andre Carter had 12.5 sacks in 2002 and it took him the next three seasons to match that total. He hasn't come close to matching his sack or tackle totals from 2002.

SkinzCanes wrote:

I'm with you, bust means you've given up. These points of "bust so far" make no sense. No one who knows what they are talking about would completely give up on any of these guys who have all been successful in the past after 5 games and bust is not used in short term context. Bust means it's over, they suck and it's not going to change barring a miracle.

Maybe you should check out their numbers from the past 5 years. Archuletta had over 100 tackels 4 years ago and since then his numbers have declined, bottoming out at only 53 tackles last season. Andre Carter had 12.5 sacks in 2002 and it took him the next three seasons to match that total. He hasn't come close to matching his sack or tackle totals from 2002.

OK, I see those stats, and...

OK, I see those stats, and...

Your point was that they had both been succesful in the past 5 years. That's not really the case. Both have been living off of one good season and they haven't come close to reaching that level since then.

SkinzCanes wrote:

you are a moron if you think that AA is a bust, he's our best blitzer so farthis year is like 2nd on the team in tackles....he's been awesome..

You think AA has been awesome. You must be a Vikings or Cowboys fan because AA has only been awesome for the teams that we have played against.quote]

lol he's been average at best