Does Joe Gibbs have a model for building the team? If so, how is he doing? (long)

[Sonny Joe Hog]

Earlier this season, I asked myself the question “Does Joe Gibbs have a model for building this team and, if so, what might that model be and how is he doing compared to his model”? Well, I think it’s obvious that he does have a model and I felt that the 1991 Redskins would be a very good example of what a model Redskins team would look like. With that in mind, I compared that team with this year’s team (after 8 games) and I projected some full-season statistics for some of the players on this year’s team to help me with that comparison. So how is Joe doing against that model?

Offense

It may surprise some people on this board to know that a number of the positions compared very favorably from one team to another. At QB, Mark Brunell was projected to finish within 5 passing yards of Mark Rypien, 3,564 to 3,569 and within 1 passing TD of Rypien, 27 to 28. In addition, Brunell was projected to have fewer interceptions than Rypien, 7 to 11. These projected numbers are all the more remarkable considering that Mark Rypien enjoyed much better pass protection in 1991 than Mark Brunell has received this year. In fact, Rypien was only sacked a franchise low 9 times for the year – and he was a virtual statue!

So, I think it’s clear that the Hogs of 1991 had a clear edge on this year’s OL in the area of pass protection. No big surprise there because the Hogs were one of the greatest OL’s in NFL history. In 1991, the starting OL was Jim Lachey, Russ Grimm, Jeff Bostic, Mark Schlereth, and Joe Jacoby. But this year’s line has blocked well for the run as shown by the success of Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts.

Clinton Portis projected to better the numbers of 1991 starting RB Earnest Byner in every category – TD’s, yards rushing, receptions, and yards receiving. Clinton was averaging 4.4 yds per carry and Earnest averaged 3.8. Both of them were at 9.1 yds per reception.

Ladell Betts compared favorably to Ricky Ervins even though Ervins had more opportunities in 1991 than Ladell was projected to have this year. Now here is the BIG difference between the two teams at running back. The 1991 Skins had a big man by the name of Gerald Riggs who only carried the ball 78 times for a 3.2 yds per carry average but scored 11 rushing touchdowns! We’re talking Big Time short yardage back, here. This year’s team has yet to field such a player but I believe that Joe Gibbs was following the model when the Skins drafted Nemo.

Another advantage the 1991 team had in the running game, and especially in short yardage, was at Tight End. They had two great blockers at TE, Don Warren and Ron Middleton. Don was one of the original Hogs and Ron was a flat-out beast of a blocker. They and Jimmie Johnson, the 3rd TE, did not count for many receptions in 1991 – Robert Royal should surpass the three of them combined in receptions – but this year’s team has no TE that is even close in blocking ability to Don and Ron.

At receiver, Santana Moss is wonderfully similar to Gary Clark in style and his numbers for this year projected to be as good, or even better, than Clark’s numbers in 1991. This team has the deep threat it needs. I’ve been preaching that David Patten is a #3 receiver who belongs in the slot and – Lo and Behold! – Patten’s numbers projected closely to those of Ricky Sanders’ in 1991. OK, then, we’ve got the #3 receiver covered. Then what are we missing at WR? Holy Sh*t! We’re missing Art Monk!!! Unfortunately, we’re missing a No. 1 WR and numbers like the 71 receptions for 1,049 yards and 8 TD’s that Art Monk had in 1991. And how can the attention a true No.1 receiver would demand of opposing defenses be measured? And if he could block downfield like Art did – Whoo-ee! But no, we don’t have one.

But, hey, there’s good news at H-back! Some of the production that is lost by not having a No.1 receiver is made up by the outstanding production of Chris Cooley and Mike Sellers. Cooley and Sellers are projected to have four times the receiving yards that Terry Orr had in 1991, 800 to 200, and 14 TD’s compared to Terry’s 4. This is, by far, the most productive the Redskins H-Back position has ever been.

How do we compare to the model on offense? We still have a ways to go. We need:

1. An effective short yardage back.

2. One or two beasts at TE.

3. A No. 1 WR.

If we can get the blocking TE or TE’s we need, it should help with pass protection and short yardage. This is probably our top need on offense right now. Maybe Nemo can become the short yardage back we need. We need a No.1 WR but he doesn’t need to be as good as Art Monk was (as if he could be) because of the outstanding production at H-back.

Defense

On defense, an important difference between the 1991 team and the current team is in the greater number of turnovers and sacks the 1991 defense was able to produce to help its offense compared to this year’s team. The 1991 team produced 50 sacks and 27 interceptions. Three of those interceptions were returned for touchdowns. The 1991 defense applied relentless pressure and this year’s defense can apply pressure also but I believe that there is a very important difference in the way the two teams apply that pressure. Of the 50 sacks registered by the 1991 team, 36 of them – 72% of the total – were by defensive linemen. I didn’t compare this number (or percentage) to the current team because there was no need to do so. This season, it is an occasion when a DL gets a sack. I think that it is evident that if a team can apply pressure with its down linemen that it can drop more people into coverage and get more interceptions.

Let’s do compare the starting defensive ends on the two teams. In 1991, Charles Mann (11.5) and Fred Stokes (6.5) combined for 18 sacks. Through 7 games, this year’s starting DE’s, What’s-His-Name and The Other Guy, had NO sacks! The challenge of stopping Mann and Stokes created opportunities for other DL’s in 1991 when the DT’s registered a total of 17 sacks. I believe that the lack of a credible pass rush from the DE’s is the most significant deficiency of this year’s team because it has cost the team field position and the opportunity for more turnovers. The DE position does not fit the model! There are no keepers at DE.

At DT, the 1991 team had Jumpy Geathers who had a great year and he had a very solid partner in Tim Johnson. The reserves were decent. This year’s team has one star, Cornelius Griffin, and a bunch of guys named Who. The DT position does not fit the model, either!

The 1991 team had the great Wilber Marshall, Monte Coleman, Andre Collins, and Matt Millen at LB – a very good group. Today, we have the great Marcus Washington, the great Lavar Arrington (somebody tell Greg Williams), and Lemar Marshall – also a very good group.

The 1991 team had a good secondary featuring the great Darrell Green. Today’s secondary is good and would be better with a pass rush to support it.

So, compared to the 1991 team, to match up with the model we need:

1. Two pass rushing DE’s

2. One solid DT

Special Teams

Believe it or not, this year’s special teams have favorable numbers compared to those of 1991, except for in the areas of punt returns and field goal attempts. In 1991, Brian Mitchell had 45 punt returns for 600 yards (a 13.3 yard average) and 2 TD’s. This really helped the field position of the 1991 team. Today’s team makes too many fair catches (Brian could never be accused of that) and makes few long returns. The field goal percentage of both teams was about the same but Chip Lohmiller had far more chances.

The model says we need:

1. A top-notch punt-return man.

Summary

Compared to the 1991 Model we need:

1. A short yardage back.

2. One or two beasts at TE.

3. A No. 1 WR.

4. Two pass-rushing DE’s.

5. A solid DT to play next to Griffin.

6. A top-notch punt-return man.

I doubt that there are any revelations here. I just wanted to compare this team to a fictitious historical model, as if it were Joe Gibbs’s model, and see where we stand. My conclusion is that we need a lot of players and I don’t know how we’re going to fill that many holes in the short term. It may be a while before we get back on top.

[warrentonboy]

So that sounds like we gotta get a completly new team!

[Chris Worthy]

Nice work on the comparison with the 91 team and todays Skins. And most of that can be address in the offseason with all the low lvl draft round picks. it will be up to the FO do really do some homework and find some diamondss in the rough.

[Buck812]

As long as we dont take another QB with our second rd pick I'll be happy.

[Bangee7]

'91 is the best of all the Super Bowl teams in my opionion.

I'd love to have that caliber of a team again.

Very nice work...you don't often see posts that are this well thought out.

I think ost of us would settle for a lot less than all that you've outlined...

1. A short yardage back (I still like Betts here)

2. One or two beasts at TE (why don't we play Sellers at TE and Johnson is HUGE)

3. A No. 1 WR (a solid #2 would work here, given Moss' production)

4. Two pass-rushing DE’s (Agree 100% !!!)

5. A solid DT to play next to Griffin (an upgrade could only help)

6. A top-notch punt-return man (I'm hoping Brown can step up, but he's not proven)

Again, nice work.

I would add either an upgrade at Guard or Center.

I haven't been able to pinpoint our weakness, but we don't have the power game

or the protection that I think we need just yet.

[Sonny Joe Hog]

Very nice work...you don't often see posts that are this well thought out.

Thank you very much. I enjoyed doing it.

[Riggo-toni]

Great analysis, but I disagree on your assessment of our DTs. Griffin and Salavea, when healthy, are even better than Geathers and Johnson. Witness how well we contained LT BEFORE Salavea had to leave the game. With Griff hurt much of the year, Salavea might just be in contention for this year's defensive MVP.

[#1SkinsFan]

dont we have santana moss as a number 1 reciever who has 6 tds, and 1053 recieving yds? Those numbers look very close to art monks in 91. We need a solid #2 reciever that puts up good numbers, and a couple good blocking te's

[Mr Platypus]

That was real clever. If we can only fulfill one of the six you mentioned, I hope it's some pass rushers.

[Oldfan]

I doubt that there are any revelations here. I just wanted to compare this team to a fictitious historical model, as if it were Joe Gibbs’s model, and see where we stand. My conclusion is that we need a lot of players and I don’t know how we’re going to fill that many holes in the short term. It may be a while before we get back on top.

Good work on the post, Sonny.

Now, maybe I can lift your spirits a bit.

We don't need all those players to be a solid contender in the playoff picture in the years ahead.

Unlike '91, we now have 32 teams and parity. The margins between the division winners and losers might be a couple of key players.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Great analysis!

I would contend however that building the 1991 team is a bit unrealistic. It was arguably a top 10 team of all time. Getting to that point took years of tinkering on Beathard's, Casserly's, and Gibbs' parts...

We have a foundation in place and I think we need to keep building onto it. The DL and short-yardage back (assuming he's not already here) are the major additions in my mind.

[Underwater Ally]

Nice work on the comparison with the 91 team and todays Skins. And most of that can be address in the offseason with all the low lvl draft round picks. it will be up to the FO do really do some homework and find some diamondss in the rough.

How do you see us getting two pass rushers late in the draft? What DE free agents will we be able to afford? There is absolutely no room for error this offseason, and given that most of the players Gibbs has drafted have done nothing, I'm not optimistic.

Personally I think our only hope is to get a 2nd rounder for Ramsey, and pray that we are lucky and two quality players fall to us in the 2nd round.

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

1. Betts is a good short-yardage back in my opinion. Portis also is 3rd in the league in 5-9 yard carries.

2. No need for TWO TE's. Cooley is simply amazing all-around. I think Royal just had a bad game personally, but we will see.

3. A No.1 WR?? Don't you mean No.2?

4. I think our pass rush is fine. It's just that until we put in Rogers for Harris, it was too easy for QB's to get rid of the ball quickly and accurately w/o worrying about coverage downfield.

5. I don't know enough about the DT position, so I won't comment there.

6. I think Thrash has always been a good return guy, but it would be nice to see Betts doing it. Brown has a lot to prove.

Overall though you had an excellent overview of the teams from now and then. I just don't really agree with a lot of the position issues you brought up.

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

and a couple good blocking te's

Royal is an excellent blocker and he gets open well. He just can't hold onto the damn ball. Cooley on the other hand is amazing.

[DB44]

Not Bad. I like this type of analysis

I don't think we need as much as you say, however, only a few pieces:

1. Short Yardage back. Some Have said Betts, but does Betts move the pile? He's definitely a tough runner, but he gets hurt entirely too much. We need a guy that can just fall forward for 2 yards, everytime.

2. Tight Ends. This position you can find bargin's for. Most teams in the league don't have a tony gonzales, just a guy that can CATCH THE BALL.

3. Two Pass rushing DE's. I think one would be enough but this is the biggest problem with our DL.

Again great work.

[0mega]

Great analysis, but I disagree on your assessment of our DTs. Griffin and Salavea, when healthy, are even better than Geathers and Johnson. Witness how well we contained LT BEFORE Salavea had to leave the game. With Griff hurt much of the year, Salavea might just be in contention for this year's defensive MVP.

Agreed -- I'm happy with the production we've been getting from our (healthy) starting DTs.

[Underwater Ally]

I would contend however that building the 1991 team is a bit unrealistic. It was arguably a top 10 team of all time. Getting to that point took years of tinkering on Beathard's, Casserly's, and Gibbs' parts...

I agree. We can't expect to build a team like that in two years of free agency. It needs to come by getting a core group of guys and by drafting well and developing that young talent around them.

We have a foundation in place and I think we need to keep building onto it. The DL and short-yardage back (assuming he's not already here) are the major additions in my mind.

I don't know that I would describe the foundation as good at this point. I think we have some good players to build around - Portis, Moss, Griffin, Cooley, Washington, etc. But except for Cooley, they were all aquired from other teams. I think the biggest reason the Skins are mediocre is our failure to draft well and to develop that talent as the core that we build around. Brunell, Springs, Daniels, Wynn, Harris are all in the latter half of their careers, and will be difficult to replace effectively through free agency, particularly since we need an upgrade in the QB and DE departments. The only long term solution is to start drafting better and being smarter with how we build around our young talent.

I hate to say it, but Parcells in Dallas has been doing the right things where we have been doing things wrong. Drafting Canty and Ware, developing Jones and their recieving corps, building a foundation with the O and D lines, and all of this largely from their own home-grown guys, and then adding Bledsoe and Keyshawn through free agency - only a few key free agents who make a big impact. All Dallas needs to do is draft their quarterback of the future and they will be built to win for years to come. Gibbs could learn a few things from Parcells and the Pukes.

[0mega]

I agree. We can't expect to build a team like that in two years of free agency. It needs to come by getting a core group of guys and by drafting well and developing that young talent around them.

I don't know that I would describe the foundation as good at this point. I think we have some good players to build around - Portis, Moss, Griffin, Cooley, Washington, etc. But except for Cooley, they were all aquired from other teams. I think the biggest reason the Skins are mediocre is our failure to draft well and to develop that talent as the core that we build around. Brunell, Springs, Daniels, Wynn, Harris are all in the latter half of their careers, and will be difficult to replace effectively through free agency, particularly since we need an upgrade in the QB and DE departments. The only long term solution is to start drafting better and being smarter with how we build around our young talent.

:notworthy

Money.

[Oldfan]

. All Dallas needs to do is draft their quarterback of the future and they will be built to win for years to come. Gibbs could learn a few things from Parcells and the Pukes.

Most bottom-feeder teams use the No. 1 pick in the draft for a "franchise" QB who is expected to turn the thing around solo. Seems to me the QB should be the last piece of the puzzle.

[ttr77]

Pretty cool work...but I don't know how a 5-6 team can be compared to an 11-0 team just by using the stats of their main players. I think the main difference between the 2 teams is the role players and depth.

[Underwater Ally]

Most bottom-feeder teams use the No. 1 pick in the draft for a "franchise" QB who is expected to turn the thing around solo. Seems to me the QB should be the last piece of the puzzle.

True. Don't know that I would say the last piece, but The O and D lines are the anchor and foundation of any successful team. It would be foolish to expect a young quarterback to go out there and make an impact with a badly struggling O-line (which is why many of us believe that Ramsey can't be accurately judged at this point). You have to be smart about when you select a top prospect quarterback and when you play him, and it all has to revolve around where you are in the course of building your O and D lines, and other key positions on the team.

Don't know exactly what Gibbs has planned for Campbell in terms of timing, but it is obvious that having Brunell, Ramsey, and Campbell on the roster all at the same time while our O-line is a dissappointment with no available fixes, and our Defensive line is absolutely pathetic without Griffin -- it's just plain inexcusable.

[Oldfan]

True. Don't know that I would say the last piece, but The O and D lines are the anchor and foundation of any successful team. It would be foolish to expect a young quarterback to go out there and make an impact with a badly struggling O-line (which is why many of us believe that Ramsey can't be accurately judged at this point). You have to be smart about when you select a top prospect quarterback and when you play him, and it all has to revolve around where you are in the course of building your O and D lines, and other key positions on the team.

Don't know exactly what Gibbs has planned for Campbell in terms of timing, but it is obvious that having Brunell, Ramsey, and Campbell on the roster all at the same time while our O-line is a dissappointment with no available fixes, and our Defensive line is absolutely pathetic without Griffin -- it's just plain inexcusable.

Looking at the outstanding teams of the past, I think you start with the DEs and the OTs, then you fill in the rest of the big guys. The skill position players get a helluva lot better on offense with a dominant O line. And average corners look like all-pros when their D-line pressure the passer.

Including the No. 1 invested in Ramsey, we have five top draft picks invested in the QB position plus a heavy hit on the cap. I don't understand that. I think you're right, we have to hope for a No 2 with a Ramsey trade.

[gimpy007]

So that sounds like we gotta get a completly new team!

It’s not that bad. The problem is that the Redskins have basically been trying to buy a Super Bowl team. By doing so all they have do is force players to fit into a system that might not fit them. The best example is Portis. I hate saying it because I love Portis. I think he is a great back, but let’s be honest. It is not working out the way we thought it would. Why would they pay Portis that kind of money when he has never proven that he can run in the type of running offense Gibbs likes to run? HUGE mistake. If they want to fix this they are going to have to change the way they run the ball. They need to get him in the open field. Stretch the field with 4 WR’s and let him run.

[Mygwai]

Models. We don't need no models!

[det2]

I don't know if you have paid attention to James Thrash when he was in Philly. I think when he is healthy Thrash should be put into the No 2 receiver position. He is tough and can make big plays if given the chance. Juat start throwing him the ball. You'll see.:dallasuck