Build Through the Draft, Dummies!

[TheLongshot]

You're right to a degree. Cerrato is a boob. Donny Warren is a rookie scout. Louis Riddick, wasn't he the one that was all over getting Duckett? I beleive Faulner is the only one with long term scouting experince

You are forgetting about Scott Campbell, who is in charge of college scouting and has been in the business since the 90s. Not sure who Faulner is.

I like Riddick, actually, and he's probably partially responsible for bringing in Suisham, rather than going for the big name kicker.

Jason

[CGSKINS]

I really think this organization realizes how badly they failed with free agancy this past year. The year before they did it the same way and went to the playoffs, this year...well you know. Perhaps this MAJOR failure will force them to re-examine what they do...which Joe Gibbs has been quoted as saying thats what he is going to do. So I think they will come around and make better decisions this year, as they are not just buying up players to try and get to the Super Bowl like they were last year, with the quick fix, as I am sure they realize that is not the case this year.

I hope so, because if they kip this cluster**** going we are doomed. You would hope and think they would learn.

[e16bball]

With the turnover rate on NFL rosters, "pure draft" isn't possible. What we are talking about are the foundation players.

You made some very valid points in your rant, but what we need is Dwight Freeney types out of the draft, playing at bargain prices, not Dwight Freeney, high-priced FA sucking up cap space if his production drops off for one reason or another.

Overpaying FAs just makes it more difficult to re-sign the guys we want to keep.

You are absolutely right, if you are viewing it as a long-term build approach. I'm different from most on this site in that I think the Redskins could contend next season. Not as one of the best teams in the league or a legitimate top 5 squad perhaps, but in this NFC I think they could easily make a strong run.

I don't support continued FA splurging, but we simply have so few draft picks that we will HAVE TO use FA in some way to fill out this defense. Now, we could go with last year's approach and give medium-large contracts to guys like Terdell Sands, Roderick Hood, and London Fletcher-Baker. I personally would rather go the route of some teams like the Ravens, and spend my money on ONE guy who will make a difference instead of three guys who could, and then allow the draft to fill in the gaps. With someone like Freeney or Clements, it's certainly a big commitment as far as money goes, but you are most likely looking at a Pro Bowl player. I feel like a bona fide top 5 guy at his position (like Freeney is and Clements could very well be) is usually a fairly certain bet to continue his production, although as you say, he could drop off.

Out of curiosity, if push came to shove in our current situation, would you prefer an approach like signing a Freeney or Clements and letting the chips fall where they may at the other positions, or signing three lesser established players like those I suggested? I know you prefer a long-term, draft-based approach, but since you acknowledge the necessity of FA, how would you prefer to utilize it?

[3CardMonte]

Here is what I don't understand about the Skins when it comes to drafting and playing top draft picks: We draft people like Campbell and McIntosh high up and we DON'T play them until the season is either a waste or the next season. Thats ok to do with 4th, 5th or 6th round draft picks, but you shouldn't do that with 1st, 2nd or even 3rd round picks because their is so much invested in them.

Here is a chart that The Huddle Report uses they call it Length to Impact for drafted players.

Length to Impact

With the turnover rate on NFL rosters, "pure draft" isn't possible. What we are talking about are the foundation players.

Also the same site did an analysis of teams draft picks from 2002-2004 and how many picks and rookie free agents are still on each teams roster. Each team is ranked by the precentage of players on the roster to picks.

[iwasdoinit]

No team in the league is even close to the Skins in draft choices traded away.

[PCS]

No team in the league is even close to the Skins in draft choices traded away.

Really? Where was that at?( aside from this post).

3CardMonte, that's a pretty good find. Now I need to find that ranking you mentioned. Member service I imagine.

[Stormy]

You are absolutely right, if you are viewing it as a long-term build approach. I'm different from most on this site in that I think the Redskins could contend next season. Not as one of the best teams in the league or a legitimate top 5 squad perhaps, but in this NFC I think they could easily make a strong run.

I've enjoyed your insightful perspective in a number of recent threads. I agree with the notion that the Redskins can contend in the diluted NFC as early as next year, possibly even advancing a couple of rounds in the playoffs. However, I think this is possible with modest adjustments and acquisitions, and that there is no need to mortgage the future, as we can contend while building for 2008 and beyond. I wouldn't be quite as active in free agency...

We need a stout defensive lineman in the draft to anchor our DL of the future; one has the size, upside and skill sets necessary to make an immediate impact, as well as being a long-term fixture. Adding Branch or Anderson gives us that type of presence, immediately improves us versus run and pass, elevates the play of the entire DL, and prolongs the effectiveness and career of guys like Griffin.

I don't think we need major, "splashy" additions through free agency, rather just a top flight #1CB, which again bolsters a major area of need, and grants us both depth and injury protection for guys like Springs. A stopgap, pure MLB would be the only other significant addition needed, which would again improve our LB unit, while giving us greater depth/versatility in how we employ WLBs Rocky and Marshall, while helping Marcus. With those fairly modest moves, we've created a much more imposing defense, consisting of a major run stopping force, an improved pass rush, far better coverage skills, and we've gotten young, potentially long-term core players for the future at the same time (Branch/Anderson, Clements/Hood etc...).

The offense is going to take care of itself with Campbell's natural progress, the return of the north/south running attack featuring a great RB duo, and a number of playmakers/targets at the skill positions/TE, all behind a solid (though thin) O-line.

Then, as we move forward, keep our drafts completely intact, and start bringing in an infusion of young, homegrown talent through the draft starting in 2008 (starting with the OL, and possibly LB corps). Seems like a chance to contend immediately, while building a young, talented, deep squad for the future.

[Seabee1973]

9. Your owner built a stadium with obstructed view seating.

none of our owners built a stadium with obstructed seats it was added on too defacto

[bulldog]

the 10-6 record in 2005 reinforced for Snyder and Gibbs that they are doing the right thing and that merely staying the course for 2007 will pay dividends and make up for an 'off' year in 2006.

rightly or wrongly, this is the most comfortable stance for the team to take as it removes the need to make major changes and admit that some very big mistakes have been made in player personnel and team chemistry.

Lloyd doesn't deserve to come back here in 2007 based on his body of work in 2006 and his attitude problems. In the past he would have been cut. Now, because of his salary bonus he is going to be around Redskins Park just to avoid having his cap numbers accelerate for next season.

When you manage a football team this way and don't demand accountability from those making the dollars you have chaos and a club where some of the players tune out the staff and choose to do things their own way.

[AlmightySkins!]

What we need is balance! Use an effective combination of free agent signings, trades and draft picks to acquire championship-caliber players.

And before we come down too hard on FA's remember...

This is what the Patriots did..

In 2003, the Patriots signed a DOZEN veteran free agents and traded a fourth-round draft choice for Washington to help fortify a defense that led the league and set a franchise record by allowing just 14.9 points per game (238 total) and posted three shutouts to establish another team record.

You have to do some of everything - but be smart about it!

[3CardMonte]

3CardMonte, that's a pretty good find. Now I need to find that ranking you mentioned. Member service I imagine.

I have a membership and can try and cut and paste it here but I wasnt sure of the rules on that type of thing.

[Oldfan]

e16bball ---You are absolutely right, if you are viewing it as a long-term build approach. I'm different from most on this site in that I think the Redskins could contend next season. Not as one of the best teams in the league or a legitimate top 5 squad perhaps, but in this NFC I think they could easily make a strong run.

Of course the Skins could make the playoffs next season. But, if winning the Super Bowl is the objective, then in order to have a realistic shot, they need to be among the top four teams in the NFL when coaching and personnel are combined in a ranking.

Our team is one of a very large mediocre group. You could make the argument that a couple of key stars out of free agency would give any mediocre team enough firepower to make the playoffs. You can make that argument every year.

Building for the long-term doesn't give up on next year necessarily. The Jets gutted a 4-12 team, collected 12 draft picks, signed a couple of very cheap FAs, and went 10-6 this year. Coaching was the big difference.

Out of curiosity, if push came to shove in our current situation, would you prefer an approach like signing a Freeney or Clements and letting the chips fall where they may at the other positions, or signing three lesser established players like those I suggested? I know you prefer a long-term, draft-based approach, but since you acknowledge the necessity of FA, how would you prefer to utilize it?

I'll pass on any free agent who is unlikely to be a bargain at the price. If Marv Levy doesn't franchise Clements, it's because, after watching film on him for every down of his career in their system, he thinks the price is too high.

Marcus Washington, an unheralded player from a second-rate Colts defense, was a FA bargain for us.

A. Randle EL, coming off an eye-catching performance in winning the Super Bowl, was unlikely to be a bargain at the price.

[DB44]

This team need draft picks. I hope the FO is putting a much bigger effort into draft picks than the FA market.

[TheLongshot]

Of course the Skins could make the playoffs next season. But, if winning the Super Bowl is the objective, then in order to have a realistic shot, they need to be among the top four teams in the NFL when coaching and personnel are combined in a ranking.

Huh? What does that mean?

Last I saw, to have a realistic shot is to make the playoffs and to be a strong team at the end of the season. I don't know what "rankings" have to do with anything.

Building for the long-term doesn't give up on next year necessarily. The Jets gutted a 4-12 team, collected 12 draft picks, signed a couple of very cheap FAs, and went 10-6 this year. Coaching was the big difference.

I'd hardly say that the "gutted" the team. A lot of their success has to do with Chad Pennington and Coles still being there. I agree with the last statement that coaching was the difference.

I'll pass on any free agent who is unlikely to be a bargain at the price.

Personally, I think you go for the players you think will help your team the most. If the guy is a bargain, so be it, but it shouldn't be the driving force. The important thing is that everyone fits in your budget.

The good thing is that this team under Gibbs has mostly avoided those players. I mean, we could have gone after Jevon Kearse or Reggie Wayne, but we managed to avoid most of those guys and go with lesser names that were considered better fits.

ARE may be considered an exception, but he plays a lot of roles, so he might just be worth it.

Jason

[skinfan2k]

The good thing is that this team under Gibbs has mostly avoided those players. I mean, we could have gone after Jevon Kearse or Reggie Wayne, but we managed to avoid most of those guys and go with lesser names that were considered better fits.

Jason

oh ya.. we get underacheivers and overpay them... honestly randel el is not worth 30 mil, llyod isn't either as well as arch.. andre carter could be worth it, but the MO is still out there.

[Oldfan]

According to Rich Gosselin, a Dallas sportswriter who has done very well in mock drafts in recent years, nine of the 56 All-Pro-Team players this year were undrafted free agents out of college.

With the number of needs we have on defense, we should be able to attract a group of prospects on that side of the ball, and maybe one might make a very good player for us... and we wouldn't have to risk Archuleta dollars to sign him.

[MRMADD]

oh ya.. we get underacheivers and overpay them... honestly randel el is not worth 30 mil, llyod isn't either as well as arch.. andre carter could be worth it, but the MO is still out there.

Everyone loves ARE, but he's overpaid. So is Carter, who, in my opinion, is a situational pass rusher, not an every-down guy. Overpaying like that when you have a salary cap means that someone down further on the roster has to make less. So you sacrifice depth at the bottom for talent at the top. Fine, as long as the talent really is talented and can stay healthy. But the Skins manage to build a roster with talent at the top that isn't as talented or healthy as you'd hope (AA, Lloyd, Hall, etc) and still sacrifice depth. Hmmm... how is that supposed to work?

The trouble with the FO is not just the poor scouting -- it's that they assign overblown values to the guys they get. No one else offered ARE near what we did. No one else offered AA near what we did. No one else offered Carter near what we did. When that happens, there should be alarm bells going off in your head.

[MRMADD]

According to Rich Gosselin, a Dallas sportswriter who has done very well in mock drafts in recent years, nine of the 56 All-Pro-Team players this year were undrafted free agents out of college.

With the number of needs we have on defense, we should be able to attract a group of prospects on that side of the ball, and maybe one might make a very good player for us... and we wouldn't have to risk Archuleta dollars to sign him.

Finding players like that is a combination of talent, hard work, and damn good luck. Our FO office might work hard, but they ain't talented and they sure as hell ain't lucky.

In any case, when they do find an Antonio Pierce who develops into a starter, do they reward him and keep him, or do they jettison him in favor of someone else's trash?

That's all you need to know about undrafted rookies. If you were an undrafted rookie and got offers from multiple teams, why in the world would you choose the Skins? The Skins don't value players who aren't household names. You'd be garbage to them. Besides, Gibbs hates playing rookies even if they're first round picks. You'd rather go play for the Bears or some other team that values youth, desire, and heart.

[TheLongshot]

Everyone loves ARE, but he's overpaid. So is Carter, who, in my opinion, is a situational pass rusher, not an every-down guy. Overpaying like that when you have a salary cap means that someone down further on the roster has to make less. So you sacrifice depth at the bottom for talent at the top. Fine, as long as the talent really is talented and can stay healthy. But the Skins manage to build a roster with talent at the top that isn't as talented or healthy as you'd hope (AA, Lloyd, Hall, etc) and still sacrifice depth. Hmmm... how is that supposed to work?

Not really, because depth players don't get paid that much anyways. That's because they are depth. The problem with depth has more to do with the selection of players than what we are paying the front line players.

BTW, AA and Lloyd don't count that much toward the cap in their first couple of season, so they certainly aren't the reason why we are having depth problems. (at least on defense. Our depth on offense is pretty darn good.)

The trouble with the FO is not just the poor scouting -- it's that they assign overblown values to the guys they get. No one else offered ARE near what we did. No one else offered AA near what we did. No one else offered Carter near what we did. When that happens, there should be alarm bells going off in your head.

As long as they fit within the budget and they don't force us to cut people we would have otherwise kept, I don't see the problem. I don't care if we "overpay" for a guy, because I think they are all overpaid for what they do anyways.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Jason --- Huh? What does that mean? Last I saw, to have a realistic shot is to make the playoffs and to be a strong team at the end of the season. I don't know what "rankings" have to do with anything.

Probabilities, Jason. One of the four best teams is more likely to win it all than a team that ranks fifth or lower in overall quality. This year...San Diego, Chicago, New England, Baltimore...any other team would be an extreme outsider. San Diego would be strongly favored except for the Marty deduction.

I'd hardly say that the "gutted" the team. A lot of their success has to do with Chad Pennington and Coles still being there. I agree with the last statement that coaching was the difference.

I'll stick by "gutted." You can cherry-pick a couple of players off the 53 man roster if you want to. Mangini tried 32 different players as starters this year.

Personally, I think you go for the players you think will help your team the most. If the guy is a bargain, so be it, but it shouldn't be the driving force. The important thing is that everyone fits in your budget.

That's the program we've been on..the one that has produced a 21-27 record despite having the highest actual payroll in the NFL.

If we strive for a bargain with every transaction, we can afford to make a few mistakes. If we don't, there's no margin for error.

[MRMADD]

Not really, because depth players don't get paid that much anyways. That's because they are depth. The problem with depth has more to do with the selection of players than what we are paying the front line players.

I think you and I view depth differently. Tell me, who's the top backup offensive lineman on the Eagles, and the top backup QB? Both of them were added in the offseason. Both were intended to be backups. And both are paid big money (for backups).

The Skins don't have that kind of flexibility.

[MRMADD]

That's the program we've been on..the one that has produced a 21-27 record despite having the highest actual payroll in the NFL.

While the media consistently says that the Skins pay the most for players, it's a lie. They do bump against the salary cap every season, which makes you think they pay the most, but it's because of the massive amounts of dead money they generate from poor personnel decisions.

In 2004, the Skins had the 4th lowest payroll in the league. Fourth-lowest. So all those guys who argue that Snyder is willing to open his wallet conveniently ignore that his stupid decisions prevent him from opening his wallet -- the one advantage we have.

Where did the Skins payroll rank in 2005 and 2006? You'd be surprised. We're not #1.

[TheLongshot]

I think you and I view depth differently. Tell me, who's the top backup offensive lineman on the Eagles, and the top backup QB? Both of them were added in the offseason. Both were intended to be backups. And both are paid big money (for backups).

I couldn't name their top backup OL for the Eagles, so I have no idea who you are talking about, but you are wrong about Garcia. He's making the vet minimum on a one year deal. I mean, there has been a lot of talk about that lately, considering how well he's been doing for the Eagles.

Go around the league, and you won't find too many highly paid backups. If they are highly paid, they probably were former starters and probably won't be making that money for long. Fact is, while the salary cap has gone up, minimums haven't really gone up. So, you can still pay your starters more and your backups will make about the same.

Jason

[Oldfan]

While the media consistently says that the Skins pay the most for players, it's a lie. They do bump against the salary cap every season, which makes you think they pay the most, but it's because of the massive amounts of dead money they generate from poor personnel decisions.

In 2004, the Skins had the 4th lowest payroll in the league. Fourth-lowest. So all those guys who argue that Snyder is willing to open his wallet conveniently ignore that his stupid decisions prevent him from opening his wallet -- the one advantage we have.

Where did the Skins payroll rank in 2005 and 2006? You'd be surprised. We're not #1.

I indeed would be surprised. I would like to know how that figure is reached. Who is paying more?

Cash over the cap is still real money. Dead money is a cap issue.

[Oldfan]

MRMADD --- That's all you need to know about undrafted rookies. If you were an undrafted rookie and got offers from multiple teams, why in the world would you choose the Skins? The Skins don't value players who aren't household names. You'd be garbage to them. Besides, Gibbs hates playing rookies even if they're first round picks. You'd rather go play for the Bears or some other team that values youth, desire, and heart.

As an undrafted rookie on the D side of the ball, I like my chances of making the Redskins squad as opposed to the Bears. If the Redskins were smart about personnel acquisitions, they wouldn't have the problem. But, that's not uppermost in my mind when I sign on.