2006 Point & Laugh at the taterskins thread

[phattymatty]

The Saints lost at home to the taterskins. No, seriously. The offense that put up 44 against Dallas a week ago got just 10 against the lowly 'Skins.

Washington hasn't farged New Orleans like this since Katrina.

[MadMarchHare]

Yeah, it's from a taterskins fan, but that shtein's hilarious.

[Northern Eagle]

Congrats Chris Samuels, the only player of the great skins making the trip to the Pro-Bowl.

[Rome]

The Saints lost at home to the taterskins. No, seriously. The offense that put up 44 against Dallas a week ago got just 10 against the lowly 'Skins.

Washington hasn't farged New Orleans like this since Katrina.

[PhillyPhreak54]

The Duckett move may not be bad

I feel that this opinion may just be original enough to earn its own topic, since I haven't seen anybody that shares it.

A third rounder. That's a good round, and a lot of good players have come out of that round. For the most part, you're not going to get many stars. On the other hand, you will probably get a contributor (special teams, most likely).

For our third round pick of the 2007 NFL draft, we pick TJ Duckett.

Bad: You could get some good talent in the third round.
Good: You probably really won't... A third round pick (depending on where in the third round it is) is not really worth that much. Certainly Duckett is worth more. TJ Duckett IS good talent. He hasn't displayed it much here, but most third rounders aren't huge contributors in their first year, either. You can't ignore what he's done at the NFL level already.

Bad: We signed him for ONE YEAR!
Good: Gibbs has been quoted as saying that Duckett was more than just a one-year move. Contracts are a funny thing. A guy can sign one for 7 years and play for 1. Likewise, a guy can sign for 1 year and end up playing 7. Our front office has said that Duckett was more than just a one-year move. I would be astonished if he wasn't a taterskin next year.

Bad: But with the emergence of Ladell Betts, we don't NEED him!
Good: How can that be looked at as a bad thing? First of all, nobody was predicting this kind of season for Betts. Second, depth at the running back position is important (as can be proven by Portis's injury).

In other words, how would you have felt if we got a guy like Duckett in the third round via the normal route (drafting him)? I say it wasn't a bad move. Most teams would jump at a third round pick like that! And he's still pretty young, with pretty low mileage.

[Quasimoto]

I can't believe he's actually serious.

[ice grillin you]

that place gets more amazing with each passing day...its unbelieveble how they continually top themselves

[Sgt PSN]

Today they are convinced that 3rd round draft picks amount to nothing more than special teamers.  Danny Boy's plot to brainwash the fan base into thinking that draft picks in general are useless is starting to unfold quite nicely. 

[Wingspan]

The Duckett move may not be bad

I feel that this opinion may just be original enough to earn its own topic, since I haven't seen anybody that shares it.

A third rounder. That's a good round, and a lot of good players have come out of that round. For the most part, you're not going to get many stars. On the other hand, you will probably get a contributor (special teams, most likely).

For our third round pick of the 2007 NFL draft, we pick TJ Duckett.

Bad: You could get some good talent in the third round.
Good: You probably really won't... A third round pick (depending on where in the third round it is) is not really worth that much. Certainly Duckett is worth more. TJ Duckett IS good talent. He hasn't displayed it much here, but most third rounders aren't huge contributors in their first year, either. You can't ignore what he's done at the NFL level already.

Bad: We signed him for ONE YEAR!
Good: Gibbs has been quoted as saying that Duckett was more than just a one-year move. Contracts are a funny thing. A guy can sign one for 7 years and play for 1. Likewise, a guy can sign for 1 year and end up playing 7. Our front office has said that Duckett was more than just a one-year move. I would be astonished if he wasn't a taterskin next year.

Bad: But with the emergence of Ladell Betts, we don't NEED him!
Good: How can that be looked at as a bad thing? First of all, nobody was predicting this kind of season for Betts. Second, depth at the running back position is important (as can be proven by Portis's injury).

In other words, how would you have felt if we got a guy like Duckett in the third round via the normal route (drafting him)? I say it wasn't a bad move. Most teams would jump at a third round pick like that! And he's still pretty young, with pretty low mileage.

was this by chance posted by someone named either "DC_Forever" "McIntosh52" or "King Campbell"?

[Feva]

The Duckett move may not be bad

I feel that this opinion may just be original enough to earn its own topic, since I haven't seen anybody that shares it.

A third rounder. That's a good round, and a lot of good players have come out of that round. For the most part, you're not going to get many stars. On the other hand, you will probably get a contributor (special teams, most likely).

For our third round pick of the 2007 NFL draft, we pick TJ Duckett.

Bad: You could get some good talent in the third round.
Good: You probably really won't... A third round pick (depending on where in the third round it is) is not really worth that much. Certainly Duckett is worth more. TJ Duckett IS good talent. He hasn't displayed it much here, but most third rounders aren't huge contributors in their first year, either. You can't ignore what he's done at the NFL level already.

Bad: We signed him for ONE YEAR!
Good: Gibbs has been quoted as saying that Duckett was more than just a one-year move. Contracts are a funny thing. A guy can sign one for 7 years and play for 1. Likewise, a guy can sign for 1 year and end up playing 7. Our front office has said that Duckett was more than just a one-year move. I would be astonished if he wasn't a taterskin next year.

Bad: But with the emergence of Ladell Betts, we don't NEED him!
Good: How can that be looked at as a bad thing? First of all, nobody was predicting this kind of season for Betts. Second, depth at the running back position is important (as can be proven by Portis's injury).

In other words, how would you have felt if we got a guy like Duckett in the third round via the normal route (drafting him)? I say it wasn't a bad move. Most teams would jump at a third round pick like that! And he's still pretty young, with pretty low mileage.

was this by chance posted by someone named either "DC_Forever" "McIntosh52" or "King Campbell"?

I was thinking more like hahafunnyhaha. 

[ice grillin you]

taterskins 10 worst moves in the joe gibbs part II era

http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20061220-124412-8470r.htm

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20061220-124412-8470r.htm

Some of that is classic and correct, but this one is a stretch...

6. Not drafting Shawne Merriman
    With the ninth pick in the 2005 draft, the taterskins chose cornerback Carlos Rogers, who would replace Fred Smoot (signed with Minnesota). While Rogers could develop into a solid pro, the taterskins could have boosted their pass-rush game by taking Shawne Merriman. The Maryland star went No. 12 to San Diego and has 221/2 career sacks.

Multiple teams passed on Merriman, and Rogers has been decent.  I suppose it's just because he was a Terp, and they felt the skins should have known better... but it's still a stretch.

[Quasimoto]

Rogers drops too many INTs that come his way.  He's the Reggie Brown of their defense.

[ice grillin you]

rogers has been horrible....but i agree the merriman thing is a stretch

[Rome]

4. Trading for Brandon Lloyd

    What happened: The taterskins traded two draft picks -- a third-rounder in 2006 and a fourth-rounder in 2007 -- to San Francisco for Lloyd, who received a seven-year, $29 million extension.
   
Intended result: The taterskins had one deep threat (Santana Moss) last year and felt Lloyd, who averaged 15.3 yards a catch and had 12 catches of 20-plus yards, would open things up for Moss downfield.

    Actual result: Lloyd has more Web sites (one) than touchdown catches (zero) this season. He has caught only 23 passes for 365 yards through 14 games. Part of his production problems are quarterback-related, and he has had a few more chances with Campbell as the starter. Still, Lloyd has not come even close to meeting expectations.

Hysterical.