What's our greatest need now?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

I was just hoping against hope for a defensive lineman. Will Campbell be a bust, maybe, I have no clue or interest since he's not a Skin and I know absolutely nothing about him.

Earlier in response to my first post in the thread, you mentioned taking a risk on him vs. Fred Davis, shouldn't you know something about him before making that statement? IMO the FO did their homework on the guy and decided to pass because they scouted and evaluated him properly. Only time will tell if they were right or not.

As for what the FO did, they did it. It doesn't really make sense to me, it reminded me of when they signed Randle-El and Lloyd in the same summer. Yes, you guard against busts, but if you do your job scouting and evaluating then why the need to hedge your bets?

Again IMO, the reasoning for the FO drafting the way they did was to put weapons around J. Campbell to help him develop and help the offense be more open and productive. We are at a critical point with JC, if he doesn't step up late this year or at the very worst early next, we have a problem. His contract is up at the end of 2009 and we certainly need to know if he is going to be the Man for the next 7-8 years and be re-signed or do we need to go in another direction. (IMO he will be, but we've got to find out ASAP).

The signings of Randel-El and Llyod were at the urging of Al Saunders, if you want to place blame, those two fall primarily on Saunders and to an extent Joe Gibbs also. The FO delivered exactly who the coaching staff requested.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Earlier in response to my first post in the thread, you mentioned taking a risk on him vs. Fred Davis, shouldn't you know something about him before making that statement? IMO the FO did their homework on the guy and decided to pass because they scouted and evaluated him properly. Only time will tell if they were right or not.

Again IMO, the reasoning for the FO drafting the way they did was to put weapons around J. Campbell to help him develop and help the offense be more open and productive. We are at a critical point with JC, if he doesn't step up late this year or at the very worst early next, we have a problem. His contract is up at the end of 2009 and we certainly need to know if he is going to be the Man for the next 7-8 years and be re-signed or do we need to go in another direction. (IMO he will be, but we've got to find out ASAP).

The signings of Randel-El and Llyod were at the urging of Al Saunders, if you want to place blame, those two fall primarily on Saunders and to an extent Joe Gibbs also. The FO delivered exactly who the coaching staff requested.

I'm more of a believer that you build a football team from the inside out. Our two oldest units are our offensive and defensive lines, they could use some young blood. Now was Campbell that guy? Maybe. And I'd take a chance on a guy who finished the season with first round buzz, kinda like we did with the two wideouts we drafted who were both projected as first round picks. Can't have it both ways there SSB, if Campbell slide because of some bust factor it applies to Thomas and Kelly as well. But I don't think anyone is more prone to be a bust, if that were the case then they wouldn't get drafted at all. You don't know, no one knows. Heck, Mel Kiper doesn't even know. Its a known unknown, to borrow from Rummy,

I don't presuppose to know more than D&V, but did we really need two receivers in the draft? To me it speaks of indecision, we couldn't decide between the two so when the opportunity to get them both came along we did so. I love getting Campbell some weapons and see what he can do, but having to learn yet another new offense and having yet another coach critique his form is a setback.

The FO gets credit for the successes (Portis, Carter, Washington) but the failures are always at the behest of someone else (Archuleta, Lloyd, Canidate). NO! Coaches coach, they get to say what they need or would like to have, its got to be up to D&V to either say yea or nay. If Campbell had bust on him, didn't ARch deluxe have that same aura around him?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

I'm more of a believer that you build a football team from the inside out. Our two oldest units are our offensive and defensive lines, they could use some young blood. Now was Campbell that guy? Maybe. And I'd take a chance on a guy who finished the season with first round buzz, kinda like we did with the two wideouts we drafted who were both projected as first round picks. Can't have it both ways there SSB, if Campbell slide because of some bust factor it applies to Thomas and Kelly as well. But I don't think anyone is more prone to be a bust, if that were the case then they wouldn't get drafted at all. You don't know, no one knows. Heck, Mel Kiper doesn't even know. Its a known unknown, to borrow from Rummy,

I don't presuppose to know more than D&V, but did we really need two receivers in the draft? To me it speaks of indecision, we couldn't decide between the two so when the opportunity to get them both came along we did so. I love getting Campbell some weapons and see what he can do, but having to learn yet another new offense and having yet another coach critique his form is a setback.

The FO gets credit for the successes (Portis, Carter, Washington) but the failures are always at the behest of someone else (Archuleta, Lloyd, Canidate). NO! Coaches coach, they get to say what they need or would like to have, its got to be up to D&V to either say yea or nay. If Campbell had bust on him, didn't ARch deluxe have that same aura around him?

yeah, and there were people here that weren't happy with either arch or lloyd. as far as trung, he got paid nothing and was brought in because spurrier said he wanted a fast back, and that was the fastest FA available at the time, so that's not really a big deal. saying that the FO gets no blame is nuts though... where were you during lloyd/arch/etc? the FO got attacked pretty consistantly, and i've always thought their miss rate on big money FAs was WAY too high (hitting 50% of 30mill+ contracts IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH). but they've been drafting fairly well and they avoided bad signings this offseason too.

and it doesn't really speak of indecision... if trevor laws lasted one more pick, he'd probably be here instead, but the way the value worked out, we really did pretty well with taking what was there.

if we got merling and laws that would have been great, but it didn't work out, so they followed their board. at worst, we have insurance in case one of them can't play, but i'm pretty sure they'll both be on the team for a while. It's just a matter of whether they can start or just provide depth, and how fast they can improve.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by That Guy

yeah, and there were people here that weren't happy with either arch or lloyd. as far as trung, he got paid nothing and was brought in because spurrier said he wanted a fast back, and that was the fastest FA available at the time, so that's not really a big deal. saying that the FO gets no blame is nuts though... where were you during lloyd/arch/etc? the FO got attacked pretty consistantly, and i've always thought their miss rate on big money FAs was WAY too high (hitting 50% of 30mill+ contracts IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH). but they've been drafting fairly well and they avoided bad signings this offseason too.

In Slingin Sammy Baugh's post he blamed Saunders for Lloyd and GW for Arch. Those are coaches, my point was that the FO should be blamed since they bring in the players, not the coaches who said "I want this guy or that guy." No, the FO brings these guys in, they are responsible for scouting, so they should rightfully take the blame.

And you're right, 50% of high profile signings is not good enough (our win loss record shows that) but they avoided bad signings this offseason. Let's see how long it takes Redskin One to leave the tarmac next offseason...

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

I'm more of a believer that you build a football team from the inside out. Our two oldest units are our offensive and defensive lines, they could use some young blood.

Not arguing your point, however there are 31 other teams who are trying to acquire the best talent and what you may want is not always available. Although we do have some good young talent there; Reinhart, Montgomery, KG, Wilson, Heyer. No super-stars but solid young talent.

Now was Campbell that guy? Maybe. And I'd take a chance on a guy who finished the season with first round buzz, kinda like we did with the two wideouts we drafted who were both projected as first round picks. Can't have it both ways there SSB, if Campbell slide because of some bust factor it applies to Thomas and Kelly as well. But I don't think anyone is more prone to be a bust, if that were the case then they wouldn't get drafted at all. You don't know, no one knows. Heck, Mel Kiper doesn't even know. Its a known unknown, to borrow from Rummy,

You're making comparisons that don't connect between Campbell & Kelly/Thomas. I don't know this to be fact, but I'm pretty sure when teams saw that Campbell was physically weak that caused his slide. No way to fix that. A physically weak stong-side DE is a huge liability. This is a "known" issue.

Why did Thomas slide? GTripp had mentioned many times in his posts that he felt Thomas was a "one year wonder". That mind set or teams having different needs probably caused his slide. His physical numbers at the combine were very good, and his production from 2007 was excellent. If he is a bust, that would be a "known unknown".

Why did Kelly slide, poor 40 times and his outbursts at OU pre-draft. However his 40 times and physical numbers are very similar to Anquan Boldin and his production in college was excellent. The Redskins needed a big physical receiver with great hands, a blazing 40 was not a necessity especially when they drafted Thomas prior (4.3 40 yd dash) and have Moss / ARE. If Kelly busts, it would be due to unforeseen issues, another "known unknown".

don't presuppose to know more than D&V, but did we really need two receivers in the draft? To me it speaks of indecision, we couldn't decide between the two so when the opportunity to get them both came along we did so.

I don't buy the "indecision" argument. What other receivers do we have besides Moss, getting older and he has had hammy issues in his past (death for a speed receiver), and ARE (really a 3rd receiver at best)? Thomas and Kelly while both big (6' 2" & 6' 4") have different skill sets, Thomas is more of a burner and threat in space, while Kelly is an Art Monk type of receiver, big target, excellent hands, catches in traffic. We also got excellent value for both based on their projected draft position.

I love getting Campbell some weapons and see what he can do, but having to learn yet another new offense and having yet another coach critique his form is a setback.

And how could this be avoided, keep Saunders and QB coach Bill Lazor? Not a great idea. Zorn is a former NFL QB and excellent QB coach. He will teach Campbell proper technique and is a huge upgrade at QB coach from Lazor. The WCO may be the best fit for Campbell as he excelled in it the year he ran it at Auburn. I will also give Zorn the benfit of the doubt coming from the Holmgren (back to Bill Walsh) coaching tree.

The FO gets credit for the successes (Portis, Carter, Washington) but the failures are always at the behest of someone else (Archuleta, Lloyd, Canidate). NO! Coaches coach, they get to say what they need or would like to have, its got to be up to D&V to either say yea or nay. If Campbell had bust on him, didn't ARch deluxe have that same aura around him?

You make way too many generalizations. It really depends on how the organization is structured and who pushes for what within the organization. First off Snyder shouldn't be making football decisions anyway, he should be signing checks, raising SB trophies and making sure the balance sheet looks good. Final football decisions need to be made by a President of Football Operations (Joe Gibbs) or a GM-type (VC, don't feel like researching his exact title). Joe Gibbs approved and supported Saunders and Danny worshiped the ground GIbbs walked on so whatever Gibbs said was done. But in Gibbs' defense, he hired Saunders to be the OC, his OC said "I need these guys to be effective." Gibbs and the FO went and got the guys.

I haven't given anyone in particular credit for Portis, Carter, Washington because I don't know who within the organization pushed for each guy. I do know that Saunders pushed for Lloyd and ARE. I do know that Arch-Deluxe was a GW FUBAR, I don't think Arch had outright bust on him, his strength/weaknesses were known. Arch was good near the LOS and would hit you, but sucked in coverage. GW tried to put a square peg in a round hole and have Arch play deep half in a Cover-2. If he had used him near the line in a Cover 1 he would've been more effective in the short term, but in the long run with more spread sets he would've ultimately been exposed. If you want to go back to Trung Candidate it was either Spurrier or Pepper Rodgers who screwed the pooch on that one.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Not arguing your point, however there are 31 other teams who are trying to acquire the best talent and what you may want is not always available. Although we do have some good young talent there; Reinhart, Montgomery, KG, Wilson, Heyer. No super-stars but solid young talent.

You missed my whole point. That good young talent you talk about is three undrafted free agents, 1 3rd rounder (Reinart), 1 5th rounder (Montgomery) and 1 6th rounder (Gholston). My point was to address the lines with first day draft picks, not free agents and late round picks that you hope pan out, thats it.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You're making comparisons that don't connect between Campbell & Kelly/Thomas. I don't know this to be fact, but I'm pretty sure when teams saw that Campbell was physically weak that caused his slide. No way to fix that. A physically weak stong-side DE is a huge liability. This is a "known" issue.

You're right, you don't really know why Campbell slid. My comparison was that all three guys slid, it happens and I hope it works out in our favor. I would still take a flyer on a guy who was 6'7" and 290 lbs, seems to me that he can get stronger. It happens all the time, people develop at different times. And it seems like spending a summer with a power lifter like P Diddy Daniels would improve anyone's strength. My only point was getting a young guy that Daniels could groom and not constantly depending on undrafted free agents and 5th, 6th and 7th round picks but actually getting someone with a little more talent.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I don't buy the "indecision" argument. What other receivers do we have besides Moss, getting older and he has had hammy issues in his past (death for a speed receiver), and ARE (really a 3rd receiver at best)? Thomas and Kelly while both big (6' 2" & 6' 4") have different skill sets, Thomas is more of a burner and threat in space, while Kelly is an Art Monk type of receiver, big target, excellent hands, catches in traffic. We also got excellent value for both based on their projected draft position.

The indecision argument is evident when you factor in that we have way more holes on our roster than just wideout and the offense. I'm all for Thomas and Kelly since we have them, but there were other DE's on the board when we picked Davis and Kelly, two went after Kelly. Thomas and Kelly are 6'1" and 6'3", according to the roster on redskins.com. I thought our need was for a big wideout, we already have two wideouts on our team who excel in space (ARE and Moss) so why do we need a third? I'll give you Moss getting older, happens to everyone outside of Hancock, and having a history of hamstring problems. But 1) we had a problem with hamstring problems across the roster last season, which Snyder addressed. And 2) I remember way back in '98 when another speed receiver with a history of hamstring problems suddenly pulled it together at a similar age as Moss, Isaac Bruce. Also, it took us a month to hire a head coach and when it looked like Fassel was the head coach and Zorn the offensive coordinator negative fan reaction quickly scuttled that plan. Unless you buy that VC and DS don't leak things to the press, in which case I'd like to talk to you about buying a bridge from me in San Francisco.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

And how could this be avoided, keep Saunders and QB coach Bill Lazor? Not a great idea. Zorn is a former NFL QB and excellent QB coach. He will teach Campbell proper technique and is a huge upgrade at QB coach from Lazor. The WCO may be the best fit for Campbell as he excelled in it the year he ran it at Auburn. I will also give Zorn the benfit of the doubt coming from the Holmgren (back to Bill Walsh) coaching tree.

Now that you mention it, yes keep Saunders and Lazor. If you feel like Campbell was progressing, if the team made the playoffs, then yes bring those guys back. If we are truly trying to give Jason Campbell a chance, why do we keep switching things up on him? Tony Romo has had two offenses, Donovan McNabb one, and Eli Manning one. Jason Campbell has had three. How will he catch those guys, which he has to do for us to take the next step as a team, if we keep hitting the reset button? Is the WCO offense a good fit for Campbell, I again hope you're right. But I hate the WCO, so I'm admittedly biased.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Snyder shouldn't be making football decisions anyway, he should be signing checks, raising SB trophies and making sure the balance sheet looks good.

Finally a point I can agree with!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

You missed my whole point. That good young talent you talk about is three undrafted free agents, 1 3rd rounder (Reinart), 1 5th rounder (Montgomery) and 1 6th rounder (Gholston). My point was to address the lines with first day draft picks, not free agents and late round picks that you hope pan out, thats it.

I understand your point, but the guys that fit into our scheme in the 1st and 2nd round were gone or would've been a reach. Merling, Jackson, and the top flight DTs were gone. Laws would've been a great fit IMO, but as That Guy said the Eagles beat us to him. The other DEs available were either a reach or didn't fit.

You're right, you don't really know why Campbell slid. My comparison was that all three guys slid, it happens and I hope it works out in our favor. I would still take a flyer on a guy who was 6'7" and 290 lbs, seems to me that he can get stronger. It happens all the time, people develop at different times. And it seems like spending a summer with a power lifter like P Diddy Daniels would improve anyone's strength. My only point was getting a young guy that Daniels could groom and not constantly depending on undrafted free agents and 5th, 6th and 7th round picks but actually getting someone with a little more talent.

I don't have exact information why Campbell fell (quotes from GMs or FO folks) but IMO he fell because of very poor combine performance. I don't know if you watched any of the combine, but Campbell looked really soft. I don't think Daniels would've been able to do anything with him anyway. And again, if Campbell's college position coach is on staff, Campbell was available when the Skins picked and they didn't take him that's tells me he's probably garbage.

Now that you mention it, yes keep Saunders and Lazor. If you feel like Campbell was progressing, if the team made the playoffs, then yes bring those guys back.

The offense was stagnant for two years and you want to bring the OC back. Not to mention his poor personnel suggestions. Campbell showed some improvement, but I wouldn't credit much of that to Lazor. Zorn will be infinitely better for Campbell than the previous regime.

If we are truly trying to give Jason Campbell a chance, why do we keep switching things up on him? Tony Romo has had two offenses, Donovan McNabb one, and Eli Manning one. Jason Campbell has had three. How will he catch those guys, which he has to do for us to take the next step as a team, if we keep hitting the reset button? Is the WCO offense a good fit for Campbell, I again hope you're right. But I hate the WCO, so I'm admittedly biased.

Gibbs' offense and Saunders are very similar so while technically you can say Campbell had three offenses it is really only Gibbs/Saunders and then Zorn.