Yahoo Sports phones one in
I'm extremely uncomfortable attacking the content of traditional media since their product is the result of professional work whereas mine is usually garbled nonsense that less often than not makes a damn bit of sense. I'm especially uncomfortable doing so when there is an actual name attached to a professional media product, since now I am anonymously (would you believe Skin Patrol isn't my real name? - Will Allensworth) attacking someone else's hard work. Fortunately this Yahoo Sports! article, which I am probably taking far too much umbrage from, is anonymous and thus gets derision from me without as much reservation. The premise is simple enough:
Whether this is a worthwhile endeavor aside, I don't even agree with their conclusion:
As has consistently been the case since he bought the team in 1999, the Redskins do not have a full complement of draft picks.
I disagree that Dan Snyder has the most influence over who the team selects in the draft. Redskins Nation's collective experience this offseason has been that it belongs to Vinny Cerrato. My word need not be taken for this fact, for instance:
"The appointment formalizes the structure the team has operated under in recent years, and is recognition of the valuable role Vinny has played this season, especially during a time of terrible tragedy," said team Owner Daniel M. Snyder...
Joe Gibbs, who recently retired after four years as Head Coach and Team President added, "Vinny worked closely with me on all personnel matters. This is a well-deserved acknowledgement of that."
"Today's Washington Redskins roster is a testament to Vinny and the personnel department being an integral part of our team structure in identifying players, whether acquired in free agency, the draft or on sometimes very short notice as we made our way through the season," Gibbs said....
Regarding the later charge, that the Redskins don't have a full complement of draft picks, while technically true it is extremely misleading. If by "full complement of draft picks" the article really literally means a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th round pick, then sure, that's true; I imagine that's true of most teams, actually. For instance, in 2000 the poor Redskins didn't have a full complement of draft picks as defined above, since they had to settle for two 1st rounders without any 2nd round picks (they also had an additional 7th rounder). In 2002, the team lacked a 4th round pick, though it did have two 3rd round picks, two 5th round picks, and two 7th rounders.
Likewise this year we lack a 4th rounder... but we have two picks in the 3rd round. I'd rather pick at 96th than 119th (pick Denver has from us) though and hardly think that our lack of a 4th rounder qualifies us as the type of team lacking a full contingent of picks. We're loaded with picks, at least relative to recent years. Compare this with the near gushing praise of another team:
Hired in January 2005, Savage's most impressive draft selection to date with the Browns might be Braylon Edwards.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another Example of the National Media
Most often then not national media is fairly accurate in their assessments. Where I think they go wrong is they make blanket assumptions, state the obvious & either don't go out on a limb or say something ridiculous just to be a head turner.
Unfortunately the 'Skins are a model of "what not to do" in free agency. Dan Snyder gets the brunt of that blame, and himself a polarizing figure that garners much attention. The only way that the hating will stop is when we win on a constant basis.
by CptChaosSidekick on Apr 8, 2008 2:12 PM EDT reply actions
Good Take!
The Redskins are flying under the radar this year, which has me very excited about the possibilities.
I apologize if this should be a diary
Redskins possible draft day trade
Redskins trade #51 and next years 1st rounder to Denver for the #12 pick,
and
Redskins trade #21 to Denver for #42 and next years 2nd rounder.
Thoughts? I'm thinking that as long as no one trades ahead of Denver for him, DE Derrick Harvey should be there at #12. Denver meanwhile has ZERO interest in hanging out at #12, but would like to target a KR in the first round, namely DeSean Jackson. It also seems to me, that since Washington pretty much has starters figured out everywhere, DE is one of the few positions that would be worth a first round pick, and that the team would have to feel like they are bound to do better next year, so they are essentially buying low and selling high by trading draft picks next year. The addition of the deal for the second rounder helps insure the deal a little bit for both teams, since Denver can target Earl Bennett and the Redskins add another 2nd day pick that will be valuable if the deal goes not-as-planned.
Plus, its been a while since we had a nice friendly WAS-DEN trade. :)
by styg50 on Apr 8, 2008 4:20 PM EDT reply actions
I'd vote no
I have a ton of work into a bigboard
#12 DE Derrick Harvey
No pick in the second
#84 WR Jordy Nelson, has sure hands, good size, great route running potential and a lot of experience doing tough work over the middle. Line him up and watch your speedsters get open deep while the seam becomes Cooley's playground.
#96 FS Craig steltz/SS Jamaar Adams. Adams is more of a sure thing, but he is a box strong safety, and you guys already have Landry. Steltz has a ton of potential, but would need time to break in slow.
Day#2 The deepest oline draft in years is bound to have some gems for you guys. Oline is Denver's need as well, so I have looked at a ton of guys through the fourth and fifth rounds and beyond, but I don't look too hard at guys who aren't zoneblockers, and I'm not sure what kind of offensive linemen the Redskins are looking for.
There is bound to be something though...
by styg50 on Apr 8, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The Mile High Report!
by CptChaosSidekick on Apr 8, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Why is it so easy
by styg50 on Apr 8, 2008 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I suppose that'd be a fine draft
No no no
(shuffles next years 1st rounder under shell)
See here? Look at this nice pretty #12! Yum yum!
(they may be on to me...)
by styg50 on Apr 8, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd say
(So let's just keep it our little secret, K? None of the big bad cats need to know about this. Ooh, what this? A lollipop!! This is for people who are GOOD at keeping secrets!)
by styg50 on Apr 8, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
100% chance
by CptChaosSidekick on Apr 8, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I strongly oppose
by CptChaosSidekick on Apr 8, 2008 5:00 PM EDT reply actions
Glad you pointed this out
Bleeding Green Nation can't agree with Hogs Haven
by CptChaosSidekick on Apr 9, 2008 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions

by 






















