Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;537511]Many people are saying that Clay Mathews and Alex Mack are reaches at 13.

Those draft guys always get surprised anyway. Both of these guys have a heavy upside.

Mack is smart and can control the LOS and doesn't get beat by good nose tackles.

I've a picture of Clay Mathes SR when he played for the Browns. If Clay JR turns out like his daddy then look out. I guarantee you he can put on another 20 lbs of mass and muscle. He's don't it already and he's not finished. Believe that! Google Clay SR. The man was build like a brick s**t house.[/quote]

His dad is Clay SR. and his uncle is Bruce Mathews. If it's true that the apple does'nt fall far from the tree, this kid's gonna be a baller.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

Of course they have a plan, it just may not be the best one.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;537375]judging the current front office and its decisions based on the performance of a prior front office structure is as foolish as judging the redskins now based on what another team does. Not ranting and raving like a lunatic no matter what the front office does is not the same thing as being an apologist.[/quote]

Oh that's right! Cerrato is now the Vice President of Football Operations whereas before he was the Director of Player Personnel. Huge difference; completely different stucture.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Coff;537589]Oh that's right! Cerrato is now the Vice President of Football Operations whereas before he was the Director of Player Personnel. Huge difference; completely different stucture.[/quote]

Uhhhh... While Gibbs was here, he had final say over everything. Now Cerrato has final say. While Gibbs was here, we traded away draft picks like there was no tomorrow and signed old average-ish veterans to big fat contracts left and right.

So far, Cerrato has only traded one draft pick thats worth anything and he did it for a first ballot hall of famer who was coming off a 16 sack seaason. So far, Cerrato has only signed two players to contracts of any signifigance: 1. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT in the league and arguably the best defensive player Period; and 2. DeAngelo Hall - a playmaking cornerback who has the third most interceptions of any player in the past 5 years, who is only 25 years old and whos best years are ahead of him.

You want to look at things honestly and not just complain for the sake of complaining? Well heres the facts - Cerrato has done better as "GM" in a little over one year on the job than Joe Gibbs did his entire second tenure here. Joe Gibbs traded away picks and mortgaged our future in an effort to win right then. Cerratos philosphy appears to be to build for the draft and make smart FA moves - only giving big longterm contracts to young players who are still on the upside of their careers.

So yeah, to anyone who is paying attention, the title change (and responsibilities that come) is a huge change in structure and we are already reaping the benefits of that change.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;537594]Uhhhh... While Gibbs was here, he had final say over everything. Now Cerrato has final say. While Gibbs was here, we traded away draft picks like there was no tomorrow and signed old average-ish veterans to big fat contracts left and right.

So far, Cerrato has only traded one draft pick thats worth anything and he did it for a first ballot hall of famer who was coming off a 16 sack seaason. So far, Cerrato has only signed two players to contracts of any signifigance: 1. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT in the league and arguably the best defensive player Period; and 2. DeAngelo Hall - a playmaking cornerback who has the third most interceptions of any player in the past 5 years, who is only 25 years old and whos best years are ahead of him.

You want to look at things honestly and not just complain for the sake of complaining? Well heres the facts - Cerrato has done better as "GM" in a little over one year on the job than Joe Gibbs did his entire second tenure here. Joe Gibbs traded away picks and mortgaged our future in an effort to win right then. Cerratos philosphy appears to be to build for the draft and make smart FA moves - only giving big longterm contracts to young players who are still on the upside of their careers.

So yeah, to anyone who is paying attention, the title change (and responsibilities that come) is a huge change in structure and we are already reaping the benefits of that change.[/quote]

Blasphemy and Heresy -- Vinny is the end of the Redskins as we know it, with DS being the architect of their destruction.
/sarcasm]

Excellent Post BHA!

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;537594]Uhhhh... While Gibbs was here, he had final say over everything. Now Cerrato has final say. While Gibbs was here, we traded away draft picks like there was no tomorrow and signed old average-ish veterans to big fat contracts left and right.

So far, Cerrato has only traded one draft pick thats worth anything and he did it for a first ballot hall of famer who was coming off a 16 sack seaason. So far, Cerrato has only signed two players to contracts of any signifigance: 1. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT in the league and arguably the best defensive player Period; and 2. DeAngelo Hall - a playmaking cornerback who has the third most interceptions of any player in the past 5 years, who is only 25 years old and whos best years are ahead of him.
[B]
You want to look at things honestly and not just complain for the sake of complaining? Well heres the facts - Cerrato has done better as "GM" in a little over one year on the job than Joe Gibbs did his entire second tenure here. Joe Gibbs traded away picks and mortgaged our future in an effort to win right then. Cerratos philosphy appears to be to build for the draft and make smart FA moves - only giving big longterm contracts to young players who are still on the upside of their careers.
[/B]
So yeah, to anyone who is paying attention, the title change (and responsibilities that come) is a huge change in structure and we are already reaping the benefits of that change.[/quote]

Great post, I think sometimes people hate the FO so much they forget that Gibbs was involved in making the decision making process when he was here. People need to stop living in the past and try to see a past FO mistake in the moves they've made this year.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;537594]Uhhhh... While Gibbs was here, he had final say over everything. Now Cerrato has final say. While Gibbs was here, we traded away draft picks like there was no tomorrow and signed old average-ish veterans to big fat contracts left and right.

So far, Cerrato has only traded one draft pick thats worth anything and he did it for a first ballot hall of famer who was coming off a 16 sack seaason. So far, Cerrato has only signed two players to contracts of any signifigance: 1. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT in the league and arguably the best defensive player Period; and 2. DeAngelo Hall - a playmaking cornerback who has the third most interceptions of any player in the past 5 years, who is only 25 years old and whos best years are ahead of him.

You want to look at things honestly and not just complain for the sake of complaining? Well heres the facts - Cerrato has done better as "GM" in a little over one year on the job than Joe Gibbs did his entire second tenure here. Joe Gibbs traded away picks and mortgaged our future in an effort to win right then. Cerratos philosphy appears to be to build for the draft and make smart FA moves - only giving big longterm contracts to young players who are still on the upside of their careers.

So yeah, to anyone who is paying attention, the title change (and responsibilities that come) is a huge change in structure and we are already reaping the benefits of that change.[/quote]

You can't say it was just Joe Gibbs making decisions, just like you can't say it was just VC making decisions. I do know VC had a major role in making decisions, he admitted as much. He admitted making a major mistake in the Brandon Lloyd mess and other blunders as well. They all equally sucked as a FO, JG included. JG had to ok everything i'm sure just as DS had to ok everything as well. It was a 3 headed monster.

They had some hits and some big misses too.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=redsk1;537671]You can't say it was just Joe Gibbs making decisions, just like you can't say it was just VC making decisions. I do know VC had a major role in making decisions, he admitted as much. He admitted making a major mistake in the Brandon Lloyd mess and other blunders as well. They all equally sucked as a FO, JG included. JG had to ok everything i'm sure just as DS had to ok everything as well. It was a 3 headed monster.

They had some hits and some big misses too.[/quote]

True, but everyone here acts as though it was VC alone making all these decisions, and forget that Gibbs was involved.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;537594]Uhhhh... While Gibbs was here, he had final say over everything. Now Cerrato has final say. While Gibbs was here, we traded away draft picks like there was no tomorrow and signed old average-ish veterans to big fat contracts left and right.

So far, Cerrato has only traded one draft pick thats worth anything and he did it for a first ballot hall of famer who was coming off a 16 sack seaason. So far, Cerrato has only signed two players to contracts of any signifigance: 1. Albert Haynesworth, the best DT in the league and arguably the best defensive player Period; and 2. DeAngelo Hall - a playmaking cornerback who has the third most interceptions of any player in the past 5 years, who is only 25 years old and whos best years are ahead of him.

You want to look at things honestly and not just complain for the sake of complaining? Well heres the facts - Cerrato has done better as "GM" in a little over one year on the job than Joe Gibbs did his entire second tenure here. Joe Gibbs traded away picks and mortgaged our future in an effort to win right then. Cerratos philosphy appears to be to build for the draft and make smart FA moves - only giving big longterm contracts to young players who are still on the upside of their careers.

So yeah, to anyone who is paying attention, the title change (and responsibilities that come) is a huge change in structure and we are already reaping the benefits of that change.[/quote]


Okay, I think we're all getting tired of this discussion, but I'll consent. The front office is doing a stellar job and the Redskins have done a fantastic job of maintaining consistency and longevity in the FO. The decade began with Vinny in charge, then vinny was fired and Marty was put in charge, and then Marty was fired and Vinny was put in charge, and then Vinny had to take a back seat when Gibbs came along, and then Gibbs retired and Vinny took his seat back at the throne; all of that in an 9 year span. And all of this disproves the the initial point of this thread which is a criticism of the FO's planning.
Some would argue that the inability to stick to any one plan for more than a couple of seasons in evidence of poor planning, but that would be like comparing the Redskins to another team and wouldn't be a fair analysis of the team's organizational structure.

They're doing a wonderful job. Keep up the good work, FO!

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Coff;538013]Okay, I think we're all getting tired of this discussion, but I'll consent. The front office is doing a stellar job and the Redskins have done a fantastic job of maintaining consistency and longevity in the FO. The decade began with Vinny in charge, then vinny was fired and Marty was put in charge, and then Marty was fired and Vinny was put in charge, and then Vinny had to take a back seat when Gibbs came along, and then Gibbs retired and Vinny took his seat back at the throne; all of that in an 9 year span. And all of this disproves the the initial point of this thread which is a criticism of the FO's planning.
Some would argue that the inability to stick to any one plan for more than a couple of seasons in evidence of poor planning, but that would be like comparing the Redskins to another team and wouldn't be a fair analysis of the team's organizational structure.

They're doing a wonderful job. Keep up the good work, FO![/quote]

See. That wasn't so hard was it? :)

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

Well have to say this, Gibbs sucked during draft time for the most part. What was it? 2006 where we drafted all of those RBs? I mean at least try to address your needs with lower picks, who knows if one of them becomes a steal. Our first rounders(when we had them) always were good picks and spoke to our needs, but anything below that was a total wild card. I won't be surprised if Cerrato does a good job and freak us all out!!!

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

Wow. What's going on right now just reinterates the unbelievable nature of our FO. Our FO lacks the patience to do anything right. What's our system? What's our plan? Are we going to be patient w/ JZ? JC? Are we willing to scrap the whole thing?

Hey, I think the Zorn hiring was desparation and he's in over his head. I think he's a bit of a puppet. I'm not sold on JC being anything special, but would like to see him this year. So i'm not sold on the current system, but it was the FO's call so the FO needs to give them a little time.

I'm sure JC is feeling alot of confidence right about now. He's a proffessional so i think he'll be ok.

Unbelievable. We're like that leaf floating in the wind just going in any direction that the wind takes us.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

I'll have to wait for a retort to this thread. It seems to me that the only plan the FO has right now is buy, buy, buy, trade, trade, trade. This is starting to piss me off big time. Maybe this is too soon but it sounds like the same old same old. I'll have to wait and see.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Paintrain;536666][B]The 'same old Redskins' [/B]would have signed Haynesworth, traded this year's #1 and next year's #3 for Julius Peppers, signed Terrell Owens and [B]would be trying to trade for Jay Cutler[/B]. That's the 'same old Redskins.'[/quote]

Sorry, Paintrain. The Devil made me do it.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=redsk1;541755]Wow. What's going on right now just reinterates the unbelievable nature of our FO. Our FO lacks the patience to do anything right. What's our system? What's our plan? Are we going to be patient w/ JZ? JC? Are we willing to scrap the whole thing?

Hey, I think the Zorn hiring was desparation and he's in over his head. I think he's a bit of a puppet. I'm not sold on JC being anything special, but would like to see him this year. So i'm not sold on the current system, but it was the FO's call so the FO needs to give them a little time.

[B] I'm sure JC is feeling alot of confidence right about now. He's a proffessional so i think he'll be ok. [/B]

Unbelievable. We're like that leaf floating in the wind just going in any direction that the wind takes us.[/quote]

I believe Jason has the type of personality to use this as a motivator if he's still on the team. (hope he is!)

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

This thread is cast in a different light after the Cutler ordeal. What's got me scratching my head (still) is the lack of discussion by the FO prior to Cutler about the possibility of looking for a new QB. It irks me a bit, so I'm less inclined to say yes there's a plan laid out and it contains such and such goal or whatever. As GTripp and others have delineated in convincing fashion (IMO) Cutler is not a drastic improvement over JC. He plays in a division of weak defenses and has a great offensive unit all around him...recent 1st rd talent OL and very good WR, TE and even top running game. JC has a good TE and a good running game for about half a season...big difference otherwise. So Cutler's relative success statswise ain't too mysterious. Why then did the FO seemingly fall headoverheels over this guy who'd cost the franchise an arm and a leg in picks, money, etc? It's actually harder to see a plan at this point.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=The Goat;543528]This thread is cast in a different light after the Cutler ordeal. What's got me scratching my head (still) is the lack of discussion by the FO prior to Cutler about the possibility of looking for a new QB. It irks me a bit, so I'm less inclined to say yes there's a plan laid out and it contains such and such goal or whatever. As GTripp and others have delineated in convincing fashion (IMO) Cutler is not a drastic improvement over JC. He plays in a division of weak defenses and has a great offensive unit all around him...recent 1st rd talent OL and very good WR, TE and even top running game. JC has a good TE and a good running game for about half a season...big difference otherwise. So Cutler's relative success statswise ain't too mysterious. Why then did the FO seemingly fall headoverheels over this guy who'd cost the franchise an arm and a leg in picks, money, etc? It's actually harder to see a plan at this point.[/quote]

Good post.. Although I believe Snyder was the one who tried to push the trade, it does not mean FO wanted same thing. Snyder is only one who can change plans anytime, and that may be bad thing.. We have been saved by other teams last two off seasons.. Let's hope that this is last one.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

Forgive my ignorance, but other then "nfl sources" where is the full proof on our FO trying to trade for cutler? Is the nfl notified of every meeting between FO's.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Zerohero;543530]Forgive my ignorance, but other then "nfl sources" where is the full proof on our FO trying to trade for cutler? Is the nfl notified of every meeting between FO's.[/quote]

The insiders are guys like Peter King, Chris Mortenson, or Adam Schefter that have sources close to the teams.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=The Goat;543528]This thread is cast in a different light after the Cutler ordeal. [B]What's got me scratching my head (still) is the lack of discussion by the FO prior to Cutler about the possibility of looking for a new QB.[/B] It irks me a bit, so I'm less inclined to say yes there's a plan laid out and it contains such and such goal or whatever. As GTripp and others have delineated in convincing fashion (IMO) Cutler is not a drastic improvement over JC. He plays in a division of weak defenses and has a great offensive unit all around him...recent 1st rd talent OL and very good WR, TE and even top running game. JC has a good TE and a good running game for about half a season...big difference otherwise. So Cutler's relative success statswise ain't too mysterious. Why then did the FO seemingly fall headoverheels over this guy who'd cost the franchise an arm and a leg in picks, money, etc? It's actually harder to see a plan at this point.[/quote]

I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;543548]I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.[/quote]

What you wrote makes a lot of sense to me. Beyond what the FO seems to think of JC, it seems that they must not be satisfied with their backup QB's either since they just brought in Byron Leftwich for a look-see. That makes me wonder if the Skins might take Sanchez at #13 if he is available. That would probably create quite an uproar around here.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;543548]I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.[/quote]But our front office is the only one that necessarily NEEDS to see the similarities.

Peter King says our final offer was two firsts and Campbell. As predicted, Campbell is more valued by this organization than he is by the Broncos, so the Redskins weren't really even all that close. But still, that's kind of a crazy-stupid offer for one guy, and as soon as the Broncos mentioned the words "first round pick", we should have high tailed it out of the discussion altogether.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

I think Peter King is one of the best sources out there, but I think he's misinformed here. I've heard too many just as accurate sources say we never offered a first in 2010. But then again, it could have been one of those "with certain incentives it bumps up to a 1st rounder" kind of deals.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Mattyk72;543548]I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.[/quote]

I agree.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Mattyk72]
I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.[/quote]

Well said. The Broncos traded with the Bears because they valued Kyle Orton more than Jason Campbell. Allegedly, the Broncos also valued Brady Quinn – who hasn’t done a thing – more than Jason Campbell (In our proposed three-way trade, the Browns would have sent Quinn to Denver, Cutler to Washington, and we would have sent picks all over the place. This trade is probably why we made a separate inquiry with another team about trading Campbell – because neither the Broncos nor Bears wanted him.) Consider our first rounder in 2009 is more valuable than the Bears’ and our 2010 first round pick will probably be more valuable than theirs; the Broncos essentially took less valuable draft picks because they didn’t want Campbell.

What do we learn from this?
1. The Redskins don’t think Campbell can be a franchise QB.
2. Atleast 3 other teams in need of a quarterback (Denver, Cleveland, and the mystery team to whom we shopped Campbell) don’t think Campbell can be a franchise QB.
3a. No one thinks Campbell is worth a 2nd rounder (We let it be known that we wanted to trade him for a 2nd rounder – any one interested in paying that price would have made inquiries and we would have heard something about it.)
3b. As little as this team thinks of him, Campbell is actually more valuable to them than he is to anyone else.

As you said, this is put up or shut up time for Campbell. 2009 is Campbell’s last chance to ever have a realistic shot at starting for a professional football team. If he doesn’t play good enough for the Redskins (who, ironically, over-value him) to resign him, no one else is going to look at him as anything other than a backup QB (which is probably what he’s best suited for anyways).

[quote=GTripp0012] Peter King says our final offer was two firsts and Campbell. As predicted, Campbell is more valued by this organization than he is by the Broncos, so the Redskins weren't really even all that close. But still, that's kind of a crazy-stupid offer for one guy, and as soon as the Broncos mentioned the words "first round pick", we should have high tailed it out of the discussion altogether. [/quote]

Peter King wrote about this in his MMQB on SI.com today. He interviewed Bears GM Angelo, who historically, loves keeping his draft picks. When you look at their drafts over a 12 year period (ignoring the past 2 years), only 4 of 12 first round picks became solid starters. Only one turned in to a “franchise” player – Brian Urlacher. The only QB they drafted in the 1st round was Rex Grossman – so that shows you what type of QB you can get if you only use ONE first round pick on a guy.

IF (and please understand I’m just saying IF) the Redskins were certain that Campbell was not “the guy” and IF the Redskins were certain that Cutler was “the guy,” then two first rounders is NOTHING at all. Here’s my reasoning:

The hardest thing to find in football is a franchise QB. Nearly very year in the draft, a supposed “sure-thing” franchise QB is drafted with one of the first 5 picks. The vast majority of the time, the guy doesn’t live up to expectations… that’s why there are so few teams in the league who have a “franchise QB”

Across the league, only 50% of first round draft picks become solid starters. If you hit one year, chances are, you’re going to miss the next. Yes, it would be nice to “hit” every year, but that’s just not realistic. Statistically speaking, it takes TWO first rounder’s to get one great player anyways. So in that light, why NOT trade two first rounders for a guy who you feel is an absolute LOCK to be your franchise QB for the next 10 years?

Once a team gets a franchise QB, then everything else seems to fall in place. If you have a franchise QB, you don’t need to surround him with “stars.” Just give him good, solid players (rounds 2-4 usually work well for this) and everything else will just fall into place.

I said all that to try and understand/justify the logic of our front office in pursuing Cutler. That said, in the end, I think we lucked out by having the Bears outbid us. Campbell seems to have a fire lit under his a$$ and seems determined to prove everyone wrong. His agent told JLC that Campbell insinuated he would be a much more vocal leader in 2009. Whereas before, he never seemed to be very passionate, now he’ll be sure to let everyone know who’s in charge when he steps on the field. If Campbell does this, it may inspire his teammates to play harder as well.
Whether Campbell truly takes his game to the next level remains to be seen, but now that everything’s settled down, I feel I know one thing for certain:

Jason Campbell will be a better player in 2009 than he would have been if we hadn’t tried to acquire Cutler.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

Man, you have got to cut back on the length of your post. I feel like I'm reading a dissertation in here. LOL.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Ruhskins;543709]Man, you have got to cut back on the length of your post. I feel like I'm reading a dissertation in here. LOL.[/quote]

:laughing2 Yeah but admit it u can't stop reading them...

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543700]Across the league, only 50% of first round draft picks become solid starters. If you hit one year, chances are, you’re going to miss the next. Yes, it would be nice to “hit” every year, but that’s just not realistic. Statistically speaking, it takes TWO first rounder’s to get one great player anyways. So in that light, why NOT trade two first rounders for a guy who you feel is an absolute LOCK to be your franchise QB for the next 10 years?[/quote]If the criteria is "solid starter", as defined as a player who you don't need to replace three years into his career, then 50% isn't even close to accurate. 50% seems to be about the rate at which you seem to get the player the scouts think you are getting. But observe, the rarity of the prospect who gets taken in the first round, and teams just totally miss on:

[U]2004
[/U]20. Kenechi Udeze
22. JP Losman
23. Marcus Tubbs
25. Ahmad Carroll
27. Jason Babin
31. Rashaun Woods

[U]2005
[/U]1. Alex Smith
7. Troy Williamson
10. Mike Williams
17. David Pollack** (freak injury)
18. Erasmus James
19. Alex Barron
26. Chris Spencer

[U]2006
[/U]3. Vince Young
16. Jason Allen
18. Bobby Carpenter
22. Manny Lawson
26. John McCargo
31. Kelly Jennings

[U]2007[/U] (Small Sample Size -- not error proof)
1. JaMarcus Russell
8. Jamaal Anderson
16. Justin Harrell
17. Jarvis Moss
26. Anthony Spencer
27. Robert Meachem
30. Craig Davis

[U]2008[/U] (projected)
6. Vernon Gholston
8. Derrick Harvey
14. Chris Williams ** (chronic injury)
25. Mike Jenkins
29. Kentwan Balmer

This is not an exahaustive list of players who disappointed as first round picks, but it is a list of players who never gave their team positive value over replacement level. But the point is, this is [B]only 20%[/B] of the players drafted in the last five years. Historic numbers might be closer to 50%, but since the draft went mainstream, you have [B]an 80%[/B] chance of landing a player who can fit somewhere on your team, and not represent a weakness.

If you limit the sample to top ten picks, it gets all the way up to an 88% hit rate. Given of course, you don't want to end up with a minor contributing meathead like Reggie Williams (who counts in the 88% here) if you are picking in the top ten, but Reggie Williams did provide some value as a receiver in his five years in Jacksonville.

The 50% hit rate you mention is the rate of getting an NFL type player out of a [B]third round pick[/B]. Third rounders in recent history have about a half-shot of never amounting to anything. But ANY team that does it's homework can get a player in the first round. Sure, if you are looking for the next Larry Fitzgerald, you aren't very likely to find him in the draft. But my best estimates show that the difference between the value of the average first round pick and an unmittigated Rashaun Woods type bust with the same pick is roughly 4-5 wins over the life of the rookie contract.

It's not quite as bad if you just trade the pick away instead of use it on a bust, but still, the point is that a first round pick is significant.

For the Bears to get value on the Cutler trade, Cutler has to remain equally effective under Center for the Bears and healthy every week for the next five years (at his current production). Basically, the Bears vastly overpaid for his services, and need a hall of fame type career to win this deal. Nothing from Cutler's first three seasons suggests to me that he's capable of being a Manning/Brady type or winning multiple Super Bowls. If he ends up doing so, tip your cap to the Bears for a profitable gamble. He's certainly young enough to be that guy.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

The other point, and I'm not disputing the hypothetical you've presented about franchise QBs, is that if Cutler has done anything in two in a half seasons to suggest that he's a sure-fire can't miss Brett Favre type who is system neutral and can turn water into wine in terms of talent around him, there's certainly nothing in any sort of record that would make one believe that.

Unless of course, you would suggest the same possibility of Campbell.

Thus, the "aura of Cutler" is born.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

Oh we have a plan. I have watched you Warpathers for ages now. I watched you spring for the earth like a budding tree. Different than your "ExtremeSkins" brethren, I enjoy you.

You tell me like it is. You love and hate me all at the same time.

I feel it is time to give back.

Ask away gentlemen, ask away.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Daniel Snyder;543757]Oh we have a plan. I have watched you Warpathers for ages now. I watched you spring for the earth like a budding tree. Different than your "ExtremeSkins" brethren, I enjoy you.

You tell me like it is. [B]You love and hate me[/B] all at the same time.

I feel it is time to give back.

Ask away gentlemen, ask away.[/quote]

Wait wait, we love you? Nah. I've been posting here for nearly three years, and never once have I heard "love" for you. Occasional happiness at a decision or two, but never "love."

Which warpather got drunk tonight and decided to create an alter ego?

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

^^^OK OK....maybe I was being a little generous with "Love".

What I mean by "love" is a lesser degree of hate, thats all.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=GMScud;543765]Wait wait, we love you? Nah. I've been posting here for nearly three years, and never once have I heard "love" for you. Occasional happiness at a decision or two, but never "love."

[B]Which warpather got drunk tonight and decided to create an alter ego?[/B][/quote]

You guys do this?

I want in.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Daniel Snyder;543767]You guys do this?

I want in.[/quote]


Me too obv lol

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=GTripp0012;543742]If the criteria is "solid starter", as defined as a player who you don't need to replace three years into his career, then 50% isn't even close to accurate. 50% seems to be about the rate at which you seem to get the player the scouts think you are getting. But observe, the rarity of the prospect who gets taken in the first round, and teams just totally miss on:

[U]2004
[/U]20. Kenechi Udeze
22. JP Losman
23. Marcus Tubbs
25. Ahmad Carroll
27. Jason Babin
31. Rashaun Woods

[U]2005
[/U]1. Alex Smith
7. Troy Williamson
10. Mike Williams
17. David Pollack** (freak injury)
18. Erasmus James
19. Alex Barron
26. Chris Spencer

[U]2006
[/U]3. Vince Young
16. Jason Allen
18. Bobby Carpenter
22. Manny Lawson
26. John McCargo
31. Kelly Jennings

[U]2007[/U] (Small Sample Size -- not error proof)
1. JaMarcus Russell
8. Jamaal Anderson
16. Justin Harrell
17. Jarvis Moss
26. Anthony Spencer
27. Robert Meachem
30. Craig Davis

[U]2008[/U] (projected)
6. Vernon Gholston
8. Derrick Harvey
14. Chris Williams ** (chronic injury)
25. Mike Jenkins
29. Kentwan Balmer

This is not an exahaustive list of players who disappointed as first round picks, but it is a list of players who never gave their team positive value over replacement level. But the point is, this is [B]only 20%[/B] of the players drafted in the last five years. Historic numbers might be closer to 50%, but since the draft went mainstream, you have [B]an 80%[/B] chance of landing a player who can fit somewhere on your team, and not represent a weakness.

If you limit the sample to top ten picks, it gets all the way up to an 88% hit rate. Given of course, you don't want to end up with a minor contributing meathead like Reggie Williams (who counts in the 88% here) if you are picking in the top ten, but Reggie Williams did provide some value as a receiver in his five years in Jacksonville.

The 50% hit rate you mention is the rate of getting an NFL type player out of a [B]third round pick[/B]. Third rounders in recent history have about a half-shot of never amounting to anything. But ANY team that does it's homework can get a player in the first round. Sure, if you are looking for the next Larry Fitzgerald, you aren't very likely to find him in the draft. But my best estimates show that the difference between the value of the average first round pick and an unmittigated Rashaun Woods type bust with the same pick is roughly 4-5 wins over the life of the rookie contract.

It's not quite as bad if you just trade the pick away instead of use it on a bust, but still, the point is that a first round pick is significant.

For the Bears to get value on the Cutler trade, Cutler has to remain equally effective under Center for the Bears and healthy every week for the next five years (at his current production). Basically, the Bears vastly overpaid for his services, and need a hall of fame type career to win this deal. Nothing from Cutler's first three seasons suggests to me that he's capable of being a Manning/Brady type or winning multiple Super Bowls. If he ends up doing so, tip your cap to the Bears for a profitable gamble. He's certainly young enough to be that guy.[/quote]

You did alot of research but your definition of great player and mine are not the same. PFT did a writeup on it a while back and it was 50%. Your rankings seem to have very low expectations. Serviceable starter does not equal great player, or even "solid" in my opinion. Just looking at our team, Chris Samuels, Jon Jansen, and the late Sean Taylor are the only solid first round picks we've had in a long time. The book is still out on Rogers, Campbell and Landry. I know alot of people - myself included - like Rogers and Landry, but to date, they havent proved themselves worthy of the pick.

However, if we are to look at the whole point of this discussion - first round quarterbacks - you will find far more than 50% of first round qb picks fail to meet "franchise QB" qualification. If you want a franchise QB, two first round picks is not too much to give up. youre more likely to get a franchise QB trading two first round picks for a proven vet than you are taking your chances in the draft. Whether Cutler is a franchise QB or not is debatable...

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;543796]However, if we are to look at the whole point of this discussion - first round quarterbacks - you will find far more than 50% of first round qb picks fail to meet "franchise QB" qualification. If you want a franchise QB, two first round picks is not too much to give up. youre more likely to get a franchise QB trading two first round picks for a proven vet than you are taking your chances in the draft. Whether Cutler is a franchise QB or not is debatable...[/quote]Well, if we clearly define what we mean by franchise QB, it wouldn't be so debatable, we'd have an answer.

Sure, everyone's definition is going to be different, but yours does appear to be "what I think they can become", which isn't particularly helpful to me.

To me, any QB who has five accrued seasons and has started at least three full seasons (48 games) with either progressively improving results or steady-state results in completion percentage, yards per attempt, and TD/INT ratio is a franchise QB. Draft position matters in projections only. Once a guy has 5 full seasons and 48+ games as a starter, doesn't matter whether he was the first overall pick or undrafted.

For example: I don't refer to Ben Roethlisberger as a franchise QB because his production has been so unsteady. If he improves next year, he's definately a franchise QB. If he collapses and costs the Steelers a playoff birth, well then.

[U]Franchise QBs drafted 1st round in the past 10 years include[/U]:
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Carson Palmer
**David Carr
Chad Pennington
Donovan McNabb
Daunte Culpepper

**Carr techincally qualified by my definition in Houston, but he never played a game as a "franchise QB". He was outsed after his 5th year, which means he loses his title. Tim Couch was nearly the same deal, but his production was a lot more uneven than Carr's.

Essentially about one guy a year, in the first round only. Roethlisberger and Campbell are on the cusp. Cutler and Rogers are two years away, at current levels. Leinart, Quinn, Ryan, and Flacco all have plenty to prove, but should all get here one day.

[U]Franchise QBs drafted after the 1st round, last 10 years include[/U]:
Marc Bulger (6th)
Tom Brady (6th)
Drew Brees (2nd)


David Garrard is just two games away from qualifying, abscent another declining season. Matt Schaub is on pace, but needs to stay healthy for the next two years. Kyle Orton is one strong, full year as a starter away. Derek Anderson and Matt Cassel both are two strong years away. Tony Romo is a half season away.

Anyway, that's how I define franchise QB. Even though the 50% figure has historically held, even by my defintion, the franchise QB explosion is coming. Cutler is just one of the many.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=GTripp0012;543804]To me, any QB who has five accrued seasons and has started at least three full seasons (48 games) with either progressively improving results or steady-state results in completion percentage, yards per attempt, and TD/INT ratio is a franchise QB. Draft position matters in projections only. Once a guy has 5 full seasons and 48+ games as a starter, doesn't matter whether he was the first overall pick or undrafted.

For example: [B]I don't refer to Ben Roethlisberger as a franchise QB [/B]because his production has been so unsteady. If he improves next year, he's definately a franchise QB. If he collapses and costs the Steelers a playoff birth, well then..[/quote]

How many [B]World Championships [/B]would Ben Big need to win as the [B]leader[/B] of his team to overcome your statistical requirements for him to qualify as a Franchise QB?

I think you've gotten carried away by statistics. Big Ben is certainly a Franchise QB.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=Daniel Snyder;543757]Oh we have a plan. I have watched you Warpathers for ages now. I watched you spring for the earth like a budding tree. Different than your "ExtremeSkins" brethren, I enjoy you.

You tell me like it is. You love and hate me all at the same time.

I feel it is time to give back.

Ask away gentlemen, ask away.[/quote]

Why do you meddle so much?

When are you going to draft some damn linemen?

Will you invite me to watch the next Dallas game from the owner's box?

Could I have one of those cigars you smoke?

How about setting me up with a Redskins cheerleader?

May I call you by your first name?

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=GTripp0012;543804]Well, if we clearly define what we mean by franchise QB, it wouldn't be so debatable, we'd have an answer.

Sure, everyone's definition is going to be different, but yours does appear to be "what I think they can become", which isn't particularly helpful to me.

To me, any QB who has five accrued seasons and has started at least three full seasons (48 games) with either progressively improving results or steady-state results in completion percentage, yards per attempt, and TD/INT ratio is a franchise QB. Draft position matters in projections only. Once a guy has 5 full seasons and 48+ games as a starter, doesn't matter whether he was the first overall pick or undrafted.

For example: I don't refer to Ben Roethlisberger as a franchise QB because his production has been so unsteady. If he improves next year, he's definately a franchise QB. If he collapses and costs the Steelers a playoff birth, well then.

[U]Franchise QBs drafted 1st round in the past 10 years include[/U]:
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Carson Palmer
**David Carr
Chad Pennington
Donovan McNabb
Daunte Culpepper

**Carr techincally qualified by my definition in Houston, but he never played a game as a "franchise QB". He was outsed after his 5th year, which means he loses his title. Tim Couch was nearly the same deal, but his production was a lot more uneven than Carr's.

Essentially about one guy a year, in the first round only. Roethlisberger and Campbell are on the cusp. Cutler and Rogers are two years away, at current levels. Leinart, Quinn, Ryan, and Flacco all have plenty to prove, but should all get here one day.

[U]Franchise QBs drafted after the 1st round, last 10 years include[/U]:
Marc Bulger (6th)
Tom Brady (6th)
Drew Brees (2nd)


David Garrard is just two games away from qualifying, abscent another declining season. Matt Schaub is on pace, but needs to stay healthy for the next two years. Kyle Orton is one strong, full year as a starter away. Derek Anderson and Matt Cassel both are two strong years away. Tony Romo is a half season away.

Anyway, that's how I define franchise QB. Even though the 50% figure has historically held, even by my defintion, the franchise QB explosion is coming. Cutler is just one of the many.[/quote]


I suppose the term franchise QB can be debateable, but i dont think just starting for three years and improving is enough. The guys you mentioned are about the only guys I can think of who qualify for the term. I suppose to be fair, we could add Mike Vick to the list, although he doesnt fit the typical mold of a QB. But just looking at your list of first rounders, you show that only SEVEN franchise QBs were drafted in the first round of the draft in the past 10 years. Assuming 32 first round picks in ten years, thats only 7 franchise QBs found in 320 picks. If we want to look at all the rounds, and we include the other guys you mentioned, its something like 15 franchise QBs found in 2560 picks (32 teams x 10years x 8 rounds - 7 rounds plus 32 comp picks).

As you would agree, finding a franchise QB is exceedingly hard. For that reason, two first rounders is not too much to give up for a franchise QB, in my opinion.

Re: Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.
 

[quote=GTripp0012;543804]Well, if we clearly define what we mean by franchise QB, it wouldn't be so debatable, we'd have an answer.

Sure, everyone's definition is going to be different, but yours does appear to be "what I think they can become", which isn't particularly helpful to me.

To me, any QB who has five accrued seasons and has started at least three full seasons (48 games) with either progressively improving results or steady-state results in completion percentage, yards per attempt, and TD/INT ratio is a franchise QB. Draft position matters in projections only. Once a guy has 5 full seasons and 48+ games as a starter, doesn't matter whether he was the first overall pick or undrafted.

[B]For example: I don't refer to Ben Roethlisberger as a franchise QB because his production has been so unsteady. If he improves next year, he's definately a franchise QB. [/B]If he collapses and costs the Steelers a playoff birth, well then.

[U]Franchise QBs drafted 1st round in the past 10 years include[/U]:
Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Carson Palmer
**David Carr
Chad Pennington
Donovan McNabb
Daunte Culpepper

**Carr techincally qualified by my definition in Houston, but he never played a game as a "franchise QB". He was outsed after his 5th year, which means he loses his title. Tim Couch was nearly the same deal, but his production was a lot more uneven than Carr's.

Essentially about one guy a year, in the first round only. Roethlisberger and Campbell are on the cusp. Cutler and Rogers are two years away, at current levels. Leinart, Quinn, Ryan, and Flacco all have plenty to prove, but should all get here one day.

[U]Franchise QBs drafted after the 1st round, last 10 years include[/U]:
Marc Bulger (6th)
Tom Brady (6th)
Drew Brees (2nd)


David Garrard is just two games away from qualifying, abscent another declining season. Matt Schaub is on pace, but needs to stay healthy for the next two years. Kyle Orton is one strong, full year as a starter away. Derek Anderson and Matt Cassel both are two strong years away. Tony Romo is a half season away.

Anyway, that's how I define franchise QB. Even though the 50% figure has historically held, even by my defintion, the franchise QB explosion is coming. Cutler is just one of the many.[/quote]

LOL. Yeah right. For once chill out w/ all those stats. You simply can't judge Ben R. by QB rating, completion%, yards per attempt and TD Int rate. Ben R. is one of the best playmaking QB's in the NFL who has two rings and got his team to the AFC championship his rookie year. Pretty strong resume for a 5 year player. If I'm putting together a fantasy team Ben's not my first pick, but if I'm starting a real team he'd be pretty high on the list.