KENDALL to the Redskins (confirmed)

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

My major concern is that Bugel / Gibbs doesn't like Wade right now and wanted a plan b.

How about the fact that they really didn't seem to have a plan B to begin with?

[Coff]

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

Kendall is still talented, and will be for 2 years. We didn't pay him a ton of money at all for a guard, and it sures up a spot on our line that was previously a question mark. If you haven't noticed only about 5% agree with you here, but 100% of us would say not to "waste" draft picks, meaning this was no waste...epsecially cause it's a 5th rounder. I think you think too highly of 5th rounders, cause this is a steal for us.

[DGreene28]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

THe success rate of 5th round picks is not very high. Kendall is above average LG... STILL! This year and most likely next. That value far out-weighs a 5th round pick.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

I'm not ecstatic about the move, but I don't think it's a disaster. I think giving up a mid to late round pick for some much needed depth on the O-line is a decent exchange.

This league is built around getting to the Super Bowl THIS season. Very few teams seem worried about building long term. How many players stick with one team for their entire career anymore?

For better or for worse the NFL is about instant gratification. Win a Super Bowl and think about the aftermath later.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

I hear what you're saying, Coff and I tend to lean toward your argument some. However, I don't think you can adequately or objectively, for that matter, look at the Kendall acquistion outside of Dockery's departure. Because ultimatetly that's who he's here to replace; Derrick Dockery.

I think if we look at this is as him replacing Pucillo or better than Wade or than this guy or that guy, then the trade looks a little diffferent. The fact that it seems that Wade hasn't worked himself into the line up all that well and we've only seen Pucillo one full game, makes the situation seem as though we've failed at plugging that position. But if we backed this trade up, say, two or three months ago, then it probably doesn't look so bad from a monetary or experience standpoint.

Ask yourself, if we signed this guy two weeks after Dockery left, would I feel the same?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I hear what you're saying, Coff and I tend to lean toward your argument some. However, I don't think you can adequately or objectively, for that matter, look at the Kendall acquistion outside of Dockery's departure. Because ultimatetly that's who he's here to replace; Derrick Dockery.

I think if we look at this is as him replacing Pucillo or better than Wade or than this guy or that guy, then the trade looks a little diffferent. The fact that it seems that Wade hasn't worked himself into the line up all that well and we've only seen Pucillo one full game, makes the situation seem as though we've failed at plugging that position. But if we backed this trade up, say, two or three months ago, then it probably doesn't look so bad from a monetary or experience standpoint.

Ask yourself, if we signed this guy two weeks after Dockery left, would I feel the same?

While I do miss Dock, he was not worth that kind of money. He was good, but was a product of his fellow teammates and coaching. Kendall is a pretty good replacement, and for half the money! Kendall is just a very small step down due to his age. But he could be just what we need.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Coff

Really? Is everyone really this happy about this move? So we basically rented a player for a year (possibly two) whose best days are behind him, and who demands a large salary. On the other hand, we gave away a draft pick (remember what those are? They are these things that the other 31 teams in football use to acquire young, cheap players, who will stick around for awhile and whom a team can build a base around; essentially the antithesis of Kendall). We gave away a mid-round draft pick, the kind of draft pick that a lot of teams use to acquire dependable and young and cheap offensive and defensive lineman. These picks are essential to building lasting depth, which is something no team can win without, yet we give them away like cheap candy. See, if we had more than one pick in the first 78 rounds of the draft this year, we would have probably drafted a player that would have made this Kendall trade unnecessary, but unfortunately we couldn't do that because we stupidly gave away all of our draft picks for a few rent-a-players. And of course, next year at the draft, the same problems will present themselves, and this just becomes a stupid vicious circle of errors. How many times do we have to make moves like this before the the front office (and the fans) learn that trading draft picks for over-the-hill talent is a recipe for disaster in the NFL?

So you'd rather move forward with the disaster that is our current LG situation?

That's the problem here. The Todd Wade experiment was clearly not panning out. He's banged up and hasn't given any indication that he'll be up to starter quality by the time week one arrives. Would you rather roll with Pucillo as your starting LG? If the goal is to win football games, I'd say that's a pretty bad idea.

Are we happy about giving up a draft pick to shore up LG? Of course not. But it's WAY better than the alternative, which is lose.

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So you'd rather move forward with the disaster that is our current LG situation?

That's the problem here. The Todd Wade experiment was clearly not panning out. He's banged up and hasn't given any indication that he'll be up to starter quality by the time week one arrives. Would you rather roll with Pucillo as your starting LG? If the goal is to win football games, I'd say that's a pretty bad idea.

Are we happy about giving up a draft pick to shore up LG? Of course not. But it's WAY better than the alternative, which is lose.

Schneed - you also forgot to add to your last sentence "and even worse - potentially losing your starting quarterback".

I think when I look at this move I like it because the FO is trying to provide JC a line he can depend on and not worry about getting knocked out on a weekely basis - essential for a young qb.
What this move does is solve 2 problems - shoring up the LG spot and also allows Wade to go back to backup tackle - his natural position. Do we think Samuels and Jansen will hold up the entire year - if not we got some insurance in Wade now.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

So you'd rather move forward with the disaster that is our current LG situation?

That's the problem here. The Todd Wade experiment was clearly not panning out. He's banged up and hasn't given any indication that he'll be up to starter quality by the time week one arrives. Would you rather roll with Pucillo as your starting LG? If the goal is to win football games, I'd say that's a pretty bad idea.

Are we happy about giving up a draft pick to shore up LG? Of course not. But it's WAY better than the alternative, which is lose.

Certainly, this trade will help the Skins in the short run, but it's a myopic move, and that is what bothers me. As some have pointed out, 5th round draft picks can be hit or miss, and typically are not worth that much, but if done prudently, they should be an NFL player for a number of years, and good GM's can find great depth and dependable players in the 5th round (and by the way, it will likely be a 4th round pick). Again, I'm not suggesting that this won't help the Skins in the short run, but fellas, this is a team coming off of a 5 win season. This is a team that has had one winning season in the past 6. This is not a team on the cusp of a championship. Fool yourselves if you'd like, but the Washington Redskins are NOT contenders. The sooner you accept that, the smoother this season will be for you and the more you will be able to enjoy it. Trading mid-round (not late round draft picks, mid-round draft picks) for 34 year old aging lineman is a move for a team focused on the present, not the future, and it is this constant belief within this organization that they are just a few moves away from a championship and that in lieu of this draft picks are expendable that has resulted in a team perenially battling to get to .500. That's why I don't like the move; not simply because of the players and picks involved, but because it reflects a definitive FO philosophy that has shown consistent failure.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Coff

Certainly, this trade will help the Skins in the short run, but it's a myopic move, and that is what bothers me. As some have pointed out, 5th round draft picks can be hit or miss, and typically are not worth that much, but if done prudently, they should be an NFL player for a number of years, and good GM's can find great depth and dependable players in the 5th round (and by the way, it will likely be a 4th round pick). Again, I'm not suggesting that this won't help the Skins in the short run, but fellas, this is a team coming off of a 5 win season. This is a team that has had one winning season in the past 6. This is not a team on the cusp of a championship. Fool yourselves if you'd like, but the Washington Redskins are NOT contenders. The sooner you accept that, the smoother this season will be for you and the more you will be able to enjoy it. Trading mid-round (not late round draft picks, mid-round draft picks) for 34 year old aging lineman is a move for a team focused on the present, not the future, and it is this constant belief within this organization that they are just a few moves away from a championship and that in lieu of this draft picks are expendable that has resulted in a team perenially battling to get to .500. That's why I don't like the move; not simply because of the players and picks involved, but because it reflects a definitive FO philosophy that has shown consistent failure.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Coff

Certainly, this trade will help the Skins in the short run, but it's a myopic move, and that is what bothers me. As some have pointed out, 5th round draft picks can be hit or miss, and typically are not worth that much, but if done prudently, they should be an NFL player for a number of years, and good GM's can find great depth and dependable players in the 5th round (and by the way, it will likely be a 4th round pick). Again, I'm not suggesting that this won't help the Skins in the short run, but fellas, this is a team coming off of a 5 win season. This is a team that has had one winning season in the past 6. This is not a team on the cusp of a championship. Fool yourselves if you'd like, but the Washington Redskins are NOT contenders. The sooner you accept that, the smoother this season will be for you and the more you will be able to enjoy it. Trading mid-round (not late round draft picks, mid-round draft picks) for 34 year old aging lineman is a move for a team focused on the present, not the future, and it is this constant belief within this organization that they are just a few moves away from a championship and that in lieu of this draft picks are expendable that has resulted in a team perenially battling to get to .500. That's why I don't like the move; not simply because of the players and picks involved, but because it reflects a definitive FO philosophy that has shown consistent failure.

Here is the thing. The front office did thier best to avoid this situation. They couldn't afford the ridiculous salaries being paid out to the guards this year. DD got an offer that we all believed shouldn't have been matched. We re-signed Wade at a resonable price and tried to make the conversion. The conversion didn't work, other guys didn't pan out, and our QB was about to get killed. The only answers were to make the trade or change what we wanted to do on offense. Crappy OL requires shorter patterns and/or more guys in to block.

Believing that you only trade a 4th/5th round pick if you think you are going to win a championship is wrong. You also do it if it is going to set the whole team and scheme implementation back if you don't.

PS: The D looks like the old D that got us within 2 games of the SB. Maybe we are closer than you think.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Coff

Certainly, this trade will help the Skins in the short run, but it's a myopic move, and that is what bothers me. As some have pointed out, 5th round draft picks can be hit or miss, and typically are not worth that much, but if done prudently, they should be an NFL player for a number of years, and good GM's can find great depth and dependable players in the 5th round (and by the way, it will likely be a 4th round pick). Again, I'm not suggesting that this won't help the Skins in the short run, but fellas, this is a team coming off of a 5 win season. This is a team that has had one winning season in the past 6. This is not a team on the cusp of a championship. Fool yourselves if you'd like, but the Washington Redskins are NOT contenders. The sooner you accept that, the smoother this season will be for you and the more you will be able to enjoy it. Trading mid-round (not late round draft picks, mid-round draft picks) for 34 year old aging lineman is a move for a team focused on the present, not the future, and it is this constant belief within this organization that they are just a few moves away from a championship and that in lieu of this draft picks are expendable that has resulted in a team perenially battling to get to .500. That's why I don't like the move; not simply because of the players and picks involved, but because it reflects a definitive FO philosophy that has shown consistent failure.

We don't have to ignore the short-term for the sake of our long-term future. With this trade, we still have 12 of 14 picks the next two years, including all 6 in the first 3 rounds each year. Making this one trade is not is not going to ruin our future.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

How about the fact that they really didn't seem to have a plan B to begin with?

They always have a plan B, it just happens that we don't always like plan B.

It's not like we had a ton of options to bring in a stud Guard, and we weren't paying what Dockery got for Dockery or anyone else.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's not like we had a ton of options to bring in a stud Guard, and we weren't paying what Dockery got for Dockery or anyone else.

I agree, and I'm glad we didn't break the bank on a guard but I just think it was dumb to just assume that Wade could take over the spot, or at least play it better than any of the castoffs that we have to back him up.

I think this Kendall move will offer the best solution to the problem, but I just wish we weren't dealing with this issue in mid-August.