A Tale of Two Teams...

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm stealing this post from another board to outline what we really gave up in trades in terms of the points system teams use for trades. I constantly see people saying we get ripped in trades (which isn't true), so here's some details:





source: EXTREMESKINS.com - Campbell Trade/McIntosh Trade

I certainly appreciate the analysis, but it’s premised on the point system as being an accurate measure of draft value, which I disagree with based on your following:
“Note: the 2006 picks are valued as a round later because they were future picks. Consider it interest.”
So in essence what this is saying is that if you want to spend next year’s draft picks this year, then they’re worth less today. This sums up our cap mgmt. & use of draft picks – burn em now even if it decreases the value we have next year. Simply put, we are paying the “interest” you refer to, to other teams.
There’s a time & place for such trades. As I mentioned earlier I thought the JC trade was a good one because we needed to get a young qb & start developing him asap. On the other hand, was the Loyd trade worth a 3rd & 4th? Add to that he got 1st rnd. Bonus $ & will eat a lot of cap space for years, only to be outplayed by James Thrash. I’m not trying to bash Gibbs & co. for their moves in hindsight. As I said before, they’ve made some wise fa signings. I just feel like the spend now approach to draft picks is catching up w/us & we don’t have nearly enough to show for it. If in 04 Gibbs had made a commitment to keeping all our picks plus signing fa’s along the way, this team could be in great shape. We could actually do both; sign fa’s & draft well.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by irish

You maintained in a prior thread that all AS was brought in to do was tweak the current Gibbs O and modernize it. It was not a new O just a tweak of the old. I said that a 700 page playbook looked like a new O to me but you insisted it was just a tweak. I'm glad you now see the acquisition of AS for for what it is, a new O.

I would argue that is it simply a more extensive and felxible version of the old O.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It should have been a tweak from a philisophical point of view, an upgrade to the base system. I think the major adjustment has come in the players getting used to the way he calls games, and him getting accustomed to his players and learning their strengths and weaknesses. And the fact he had to scale back things for Brunell.

I agree that it should have been but it wasnt.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm talking about since Gibbs came back.

The players we aquired in 2004 were the foundation of the playoff run in '05.

Ok, since Gibbs came back the Skins are 20-25.

That playoff run in '05 looks more and more like a fluke with each loss in '06. Read Jason La Canfora's take on the 5-game winning streak last season here:

A Tale of Two Teams - Redskins Insider

[MTK]

Fluke my ass. Winning 6 games in a row in this league, 3 against division opponents, isn't a fluke and isn't something anyone should have to apologize for.

Last year things clicked at the right time. The offense leaned heavily on the ground game and played old style Redskins football, and the defense was playing lights out.

There's not much use to compare them to this year's team. Different offense, different players, and different circumstances.

[Redskin]

Come on guys injuries really killed us this year more then the free agency, CP is still our touchdown leader, now what does that tell you. Sure AA was a bust but Carter is starting to pick it up and ARE is plenty good. The free agency cant make a team worse that is almost a luaghable concept. The guys form the draft that are really standing out in your eyes were were lucky as hell picks that could have gone either way and had a better chance of going south. Colsten was 3rd to last guy picked in the draft who ever saw him being such a break out wide reciever? NO was prolly filling space with him and got lucky. Reggie Bush, a #2 draft pick, would do nothign for this team. Hell the #1 draft pick is useless, how you think Houston feels right about now? The fact of the matter is that there were no great defensive drafts that would have strengthened our defense which is where we are lacking. Although our free agency choices were bad, they are not what made this team worse.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Fluke my ass. Winning 6 games in a row in this league, 3 against division opponents, isn't a fluke and isn't something anyone should have to apologize for.

Last year things clicked at the right time. The offense leaned heavily on the ground game and played old style Redskins football, and the defense was playing lights out.

There's not much use to compare them to this year's team. Different offense, different players, and different circumstances.

It WAS a fluke -- there are asterisks all over that 5-0 run. And that foundation you talked about? What happened to it this year? Don't give me the injury crap. That's such a weak cop-out. We had one starter go down for the year. ONE. And we still had him for eight games.

That players that make up this "foundation" you speak of are still here -- there were only additions to it; ones that you defend, I might add. But here's the thing, if it's one thing the 2006 season is telling us, it's that the "foundation" had serious cracks in it. The one free agent pickup we can give Gibbs credit for is Antonio Brown -- he was the sole reason there was a playoff appearance. Without his return against the Cards, all of Portis' yards, and all of the stellar defensive performances mean absolutely squat. And the front office couldn't wait to get rid of his ass.

4-9 Matty. Remember that. And we're going nowhere but south.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It WAS a fluke -- there are asterisks all over that 5-0 run. And that foundation you talked about? What happened to it this year? Don't give me the injury crap. That's such a weak cop-out. We had one starter go down for the year. ONE. And we still had him for eight games.

That players that make up this "foundation" you speak of are still here -- there were only additions to it; ones that you defend, I might add. But here's the thing, if it's one thing the 2006 season is telling us, it's that the "foundation" had serious cracks in it. The one free agent pickup we can give Gibbs credit for is Antonio Brown -- he was the sole reason there was a playoff appearance. Without his return against the Cards, all of Portis' yards, and all of the stellar defensive performances mean absolutely squat. And the front office couldn't wait to get rid of his ass.

4-9 Matty. Remember that. And we're going nowhere but south.

You could find asterisks all over several winning streaks throughout history with many different teams. But whatever, that's your opinion that it was a fluke. I won't belabor the point.

However, "Antonio Brown is the sole reason there was a playoff appearance"??? C'mon. You can't be serious? You really have that narrow, close-minded, pessimistic view of things?

[The Zimmermans]

the 5-0 might not have been a fluke, but it is really killing us now. Makes the coaches and FO feel that we can still put it all together with what we have LIKE LAST YEAR, which really killed our progression this year, especially with campbell and mcintosh.

[MTK]

Antonio Brown was the sole reason for the playoff run??

Ok. If you really believe that this conversation is dead.

That's one of the worst takes I've ever heard.

You can pick the entire season apart play by play and say if it wasn't for this play, or if it wasn't for that play there would have been no playoffs.

It's totally ridiculous to boil it down to one play and proclaim that was the sole reason. Totally ridiculous.

[Beemnseven]

People who are foolishly under the impression that the Redskins were world-beaters last year don't like to hear it, but yes -- If Brown doesn't take that return, then we lose the Cardinal game, and then they don't control their own destiny. Of course, he did make it, so you can't take that away. But it does prove how paper thin the strength of our team was last season.

And we can confirm this by their performance this year. Think about it:

We're a gust of wind and a coin toss away from 2-11.

[MTK]

Last year's team and this year's team are different, you can't make direct comparisons that because we stink this year, we probably weren't that good last year in hindsight.

If that's the case how about other teams in the league that have also failed to live up to expectations based on what they accomplished last year.

Should we also assume that these teams actually stunk last year because they're not doing as well this year?

Should the Steelers' Super Bowl win carry some tarnish because of what they're doing this year?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Should the Steelers' Super Bowl win carry some tarnish because of what they're doing this year?

Very good point! This happens more often than not in the NFL.

[The Zimmermans]

a lot of people are saying the steelers superbowl season was a fluke. But I am not saying that, they were very good. But many say that they got very very lucky.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

a lot of people are saying the steelers superbowl season was a fluke. But I am not saying that, they were very good. But many say that they got very very lucky.

They did get lucky. But Luck is a very important factor in winning the super bowl. No luck equals no super bowl win.