Redskins are not suitable for the 6th pick

[XxSpearheadxX]

There are no Defensive players seen as "can't miss"....there are alot of "Has Potential to be great"....players.....

Given our status, if we can pick up ~2 solid players in FA. I'd trade down if the opportunity presents itself, even if we fall out of the first round. If we could pick up several picks in the 2nd & 3rd rounds, where we could get some young role players, I'd be happy....

So true the words you speak, the difference between the defensive players at the top of the board and at the end of the 1st round have never been slimmer in recent years.

Are you going to tell me that Tank Tyler out of NC State is so much worse than Branch?

We could get a solid DT, CB and LBer/Safety if we traded way way down (like to the end way down) We have to do this.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I'll respond to this stuff once, and then let's get back to the topic at hand. That was the exact point of answering the initial questions the way I did. OKAY?

Mass thinks that trying to stock depth and having "good" players is not the way to build a football team. That you should try and have "great" players at all positions no matter what the cost. Basically, pure capitalism where you outbid the other teams like you see in Baseball. I have no idea about how he feels about having depth, but I think that is how he feels aobut getting starters. Please feel free to correct me if I'm off base Mass.

You're close enough that discussing the semantic differences wouldn't be worth the time or effort. When it comes to depth, I'm all for it. So long as those players are of a caliber that they can step in and fill the shoes of the player who they're replacing without a major drop-off in talent.

....So I guess that means he wants us to let other people draft, wait until the guys who become great on other teams get older and their contracts run out, and then sign them all to huge deals.

As I've said several times, I want to look at players in the 25-28 year old age range. Not the 30+ year olds. However, I'm not interested in the 20-24 year olds that are generally found in the draft.

I think that is the point, unfortunately. He does not want a cap. He wants the owner who happens to have the most money basically buy all the star players. Heck...seems to be working for the Yanks. lol.

You are correct that I want to go back to a cap-less system. That's for both political/philosophical reason along with football related reasons. The Yankees and Red Sox (who I am not a fan of) are contenders every year in MLB's American League and are often favorites to go to the World Series. Can you really tell me you'd be unhappy if the Redskins were prohibitive favorites to get to the NFC Championship Game and Super Bowl every year?

Problem with that is that, by the time they are established stars they are probably further up there in age, and also you will have no chemistry at all on your team; just a roster full of incredibly expensive stars who just happen to play together and probably could care less about the team or even winning all that much perhaps. It is much easier to do that in Baseball than it is in Football since Football requires much more timing and chemistry between players. But hey, I can't argue with the facts...it has been working for us for years.

I've already commented on the age issue. Chemistry is something that comes from an institutional philosophy so far as I'm concerned. That's part of why we don't have any of it in Washington... we don't have an institutional philosophy in the organization.

As for it being working or not in DC, I'd been a big supporter of Dan Snyder until the last couple years, when it seems he's started to look at teams like the Patriots and attempt to do some of the things they and other similar teams do in terms of roster development.

Now, if you want to take any of this up with me, please send me a PRIVATE MESSAGE. Let's allow the thread to get back on track. OKAY?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Oh, so the Pats have been mediocre lately? Better drafting than the Skins and a bunch of postseason wins. Steelers have been mediocre lately? Super Bowl champs last year and consistently competitive. Even the freakin Eagles draft well and have more postseason wins in the past 5 years than the Skins have had.

Yeah, tell me exactly how good drafting breeds mediocrity?

I'm not going to get into discussing specific teams. Suffice it to say that I believe the system teams like the ones you've mentioned don't build to be Dominant. They build and play with a system designed to Not Lose games. When, in their Championship seasons did you see ANY of those teams go out and just PUMMEL an opponent from beginning to end in a game? Not very often. More often they're playing close games that go down to the wire and where they count on the other team making a mistake in the clutch to win. The only conclusion that brings me to is that the league is now designed to promote mediocrity rather than Greatness or Dominance in teams.

Drafting breeds mediocrity because you cannot generally expect most draft picks to come in and play like veterans from the first day they're in camp. Therefore, a system that relies on a lot of draft picks (especially lower round picks) to be involved in the system is generally not going to be based on dominating oppponents. Largely because the players they're utilizing are probably not going to have the skills and experience to do that. Ergo, it promotes mediocrity rather than Dominance.

[DiscoBob]

I agree with you that the salary cap isn't going anywhere. In which case I'd rather continue on with the losing streak this team is currently mired in than to do what you're suggesting is needed to fix it. I just don't believe in the draft as the proper way to build a team. Especially after the first round. If that means losing, so be it. I'd rather be Right in the way I do things than successful any day.

The Redskins are a business.....an entertainment business....nothing else....

There is no "Right Way" to do things, they aren't a non-profit outreach organization. The "Right Way" in business is to turn a profit, and you do that by winning games. The Redskins are currently the most valuable NFL franchise, and would be more so if they had a consistantly good team.

The system is set up the way it is....so rather than complaining about it, why wouldn't you just do what needs to be done under the current set of rules to win?

You can act like some kind of football purist and worry about the state of the game and the talent level of the league, but just understand that the rest of us could care less about any of that if the Redskins were winning....

[mbroo12]

The draft is a toss up!!! Nobody knows what these kids are going to do coming into the league. They may have torn the college ranks up and come into the league and be total flops!! It happens!!! The purpose of the draft is to get the best player you can get with your pick and hope he fills your needs. I think for one to put so much pressure on a rookie to turn your franchise around is kind of shaky. Some end up doing great and really helping you out. Ex. Vince Young, Reggie Bush, Devin Hester. But who knows for sure?

[Monkart]

True enough. Those average players belong in the ranks of the third stringers, special teamers, and mop-up groups for when the REAL players have set us out to a 35 point lead.

Mass, do view sports the way you do war, meaning total domination is always a must?

I like to see a good crushing once in a while, but I like the parity the league has also. Even watching the Skins crush other teams all the time would get boring.

Now with war, I would always want my country to crush, as to minimize harm to our troups.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass, do view sports the way you do war, meaning total domination is always a must?

Yes. That's one of the better analogies.

I like to see a good crushing once in a while, but I like the parity the league has also. Even watching the Skins crush other teams all the time would get boring.

To me, it's the close, knuckle-biting games that I HATE. Win or lose, I prefer to see the blowouts. If we're winning, it's great to watch. If we're losing, I get to turn it off early and not waste my time. Nothing worse than spending three and a half hours watching a game, thinking your team is going to win only to see them lose it in the last couple minutes of the game. Total waste of time.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The draft is a toss up!!! Nobody knows what these kids are going to do coming into the league. They may have torn the college ranks up and come into the league and be total flops!! It happens!!! The purpose of the draft is to get the best player you can get with your pick and hope he fills your needs. I think for one to put so much pressure on a rookie to turn your franchise around is kind of shaky. Some end up doing great and really helping you out. Ex. Vince Young, Reggie Bush, Devin Hester. But who knows for sure?

The draft is a game of Russian Roulette; similar to your concept of a toss up. Obviously there's a very good chance that these players will never be able to make the step up to the NFL level of play. You don't know for certain whether or not these players can actually do it in the NFL until you get them into camp.

As that relates to the #6 pick.... That is exactly why I don't want to trade down. At #6 we have the opportunity to select a single player who we think can come in and make a difference. With only five players gone at that point, even in a relatively "weak" draft, as we supposedly have this year, we can still get a player who is fairly likely to make an impact. At least so long as we've done our homework and research. If we trade down, we increase the chance that our target players at our positions of need will not be there; and the potential for getting a player who cannot come in and make it in the league. I totally disagree with the "BPA" philosophy.

[Ernie5]

If we keep #6 (and I think we will b/c there won't be any real attractive offers for it), Branch, Anderson & Adams are all worthy picks.

[RedskinDan0557]

There are no standout Defensive players at our pick and the margin between those at the top of the 1st and bottom is very thin as someone has already pointed out.

That being said if Adrian Peterson is available at #6 I can see us trading down with Greebay and maybe picking up Okoye or Carricker, who have just as much potential to be impact players as Anderson, Branch, or Adams.

[InTikiITrust]

As that relates to the #6 pick.... That is exactly why I don't want to trade down. At #6 we have the opportunity to select a single player who we think can come in and make a difference. With only five players gone at that point, even in a relatively "weak" draft, as we supposedly have this year, we can still get a player who is fairly likely to make an impact. At least so long as we've done our homework and research. If we trade down, we increase the chance that our target players at our positions of need will not be there; and the potential for getting a player who cannot come in and make it in the league. I totally disagree with the "BPA" philosophy.

You are delusional if you think you can put impact players at every freakin position. Just delusional.

You mention the Sox and Yankees....both of those are usually high up there in preseason rankings and someone always thinks they can go all the way...and NEITHER of them has gone out there and completely dominated the league in a bunch of years. 98 Yankees is the closest I can think of of dominating the league, but in baseball, a team with no cap, NO team really dominates in either the regular season or the postseason.

You also fail to think about the system teams run. From reading your posts, you seem to ignore schemes and such. For example, an aging vet and a rookie might play the same position on a team and both do a fine job...because of the scheme. A good scheme hides these average players. Again, look at the Pats. They can plug players in anywhere it seems and have success.

And my last point: live in the now dude. No use trying to live in the past without a cap, the NFL won't get rid of it.

[Skin Patrol]

No hyperbole at all, Skin. It's what I believe. I have no interest in players drafted after the first round, and not even that much interest in players drafted outside the upper half of the first round. They're just too much of a guess as to who is or isn't going to succeed. I have no interest in players whose main positive attributes are "potential", or "great motor but needs work", or "can be taught".

Personally, I'd prefer to see the team built ENTIRELY through Free Agency, but under the current financial system the NFL uses that's not going to happen. I have a particular view of the way the draft should be run and what should be expected out of the players drafted. It's an unusual view, but it is the way I see things. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. We're all entitled to our own opinion.

Well, I applaud your sincerity. I disagree strongly with that approach, though I understand the necessity of free agency. What I would caution you (and anyone else) against is either extreme in team building. Focusing solely on the draft is just as likely to fail as building entirely through free agency.

What you've admitted is that you have no interest in players like Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Jason Campbell, Santana Moss, Ladell Betts, Marcus Washington, Rocky McIntosh, or countless other contributors to the Washington Redskins, none of whom were selected with the first 15 picks in teh draft.

[InTikiITrust]

What you've admitted is that you have no interest in players like Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Jason Campbell, Santana Moss, Ladell Betts, Marcus Washington, Rocky McIntosh, or countless other contributors to the Washington Redskins, none of whom were selected with the first 15 picks in teh draft.

But they're good players who get the job done and play hard. But I guess they're all useless because they aren't the best at their position.

[Bliz]

To me, it's the close, knuckle-biting games that I HATE. Win or lose, I prefer to see the blowouts. If we're winning, it's great to watch. If we're losing, I get to turn it off early and not waste my time. Nothing worse than spending three and a half hours watching a game, thinking your team is going to win only to see them lose it in the last couple minutes of the game. Total waste of time.

You should stop watching sports altogether. Football especially.

That type of domination is extraordinarily rare in any sport, and will never, ever happen in football. Even during the Jack Kent Cooke days, when we were able to consistently field great teams by outspending others, we never approached this level of "dominance" that you expect in these days of parity-inducing rules.

The blowout vs close game thing is just insane. Ever watch ESPN classic? Why is it there are no 70-0 college blowouts on that channel? A close, battle between competitors where either could walk away victorious is what makes sports great. From your posts in this thread, seems you'd rather watch Ali vs. 10 year old than any of the so called "great" fights in history. How about Agassi vs. triple amputee? Domination, right?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You are delusional if you think you can put impact players at every freakin position. Just delusional.

I agree that it's not going to happen. That doesn't mean it isn't what I think should happen. Two very different concepts/mindsets so far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, we are currently looking at a league where teams that try to put impact players at as many positions as possible are hamstrung because the league prefers parity to Greatness. That's part of the reason why my interest in the league has been seriously waning over the last decade.

You also fail to think about the system teams run. From reading your posts, you seem to ignore schemes and such. For example, an aging vet and a rookie might play the same position on a team and both do a fine job...because of the scheme. A good scheme hides these average players. Again, look at the Pats. They can plug players in anywhere it seems and have success.

It's not a matter of ignoring tthe schemes/systems that a team runs. It's a matter that I disagree with most of them. To me, most of the "schemes" out there in the league currently are simply ways to hide the inadequacies of players who shouldn't be on the field to start with by being passive instead of aggressive. It happens on both sides of the ball, and the Patriots are a great example of it. The can plug anybody in because they don't expect their players to actually MAKE BIG PLAYS. They simple expect them not to make mistakes. That's not what I'm looking for in either an offensive or a defensive scheme.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Well, I applaud your sincerity. I disagree strongly with that approach, though I understand the necessity of free agency. What I would caution you (and anyone else) against is either extreme in team building. Focusing solely on the draft is just as likely to fail as building entirely through free agency.

That's fine. We can respectfully disagree with each other, so far as I am concerned. You have your way of looking at it and I have mine. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind, so we may as well just agree to disagree and move on.

What you've admitted is that you have no interest in players like Chris Cooley, Clinton Portis, Jason Campbell, Santana Moss, Ladell Betts, Marcus Washington, Rocky McIntosh, or countless other contributors to the Washington Redskins, none of whom were selected with the first 15 picks in teh draft.

That's actually not quite correct. For the players on that list that the Redskins drafted, you would largely be correct. In regard to the latter career acquisitions on the list you're not actually correct. Once they've proven they can play in the league, their initial draft position becomes immaterial. I just don't want the Redskins wasting their time and resources researching college players who are not first round caliber. Can you see the difference in what I'm talking about now?

But I guess they're all useless because they aren't the best at their position.

Not at all. What I'm looking for it top tier players. Not always the absolute tip of the mountain, though that would be nice, but rather top tier talent. I believe that most of our current players have major holes in their game that keep them from being on that top tier. That's my problem with most of them.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

That type of domination is extraordinarily rare in any sport, and will never, ever happen in football. Even during the Jack Kent Cooke days, when we were able to consistently field great teams by outspending others, we never approached this level of "dominance" that you expect in these days of parity-inducing rules.

Interestingly enough it's actually the 1991 Redskins team that solidified these concepts in my mind. That was one of the most dominant teams in sports history so far as I can see. Their average game was a better than 16 point victory. Even after figuring in the two losses. Their margin of victory went UP in the playoffs. They recorded several shutouts during that season. They flat-out dominated their opponents in nearly every game. Hell, Chip Lohmiller became only the second player in NFL history to outscore an entire team in a season (the Indy. Colts).

The blowout vs close game thing is just insane. Ever watch ESPN classic? Why is it there are no 70-0 college blowouts on that channel? A close, battle between competitors where either could walk away victorious is what makes sports great. From your posts in this thread, seems you'd rather watch Ali vs. 10 year old than any of the so called "great" fights in history. How about Agassi vs. triple amputee? Domination, right?

My cable network does not offer ESPN Classic, but I understand what you're saying. The difference is that to me sports aren't about competition, sportsmanship, or fair play; they about WINNING and Dominating your opponent.

In regard to your two analogies.... if there was a 10 year old or a triple amputee willing to take those challenges, I'd be very interested in watching them get the pummeling they deserve.

[Skin Patrol]

That's actually not quite correct. For the players on that list that the Redskins drafted, you would largely be correct. In regard to the latter career acquisitions on the list you're not actually correct. Once they've proven they can play in the league, their initial draft position becomes immaterial. I just don't want the Redskins wasting their time and resources researching college players who are not first round caliber. Can you see the difference in what I'm talking about now?

I understand what you're saying, why you're wrong is that these players weren't significantly different years later when the Redskins picked them up (as often as not they were worse or produced less -- as with Portis or Marcus Washington). The only thing that had changed was the amount we paid them; more.

I think your favoritism of Free Agents over draft picks suggest you don't truly grasp the economics of the game. If you are choosing between two players, one of whom must be purchased at a market price against competing teams, and another that you have exclusive rights to and is paid a predetermined amount contingent on where they are drafted (and is low relative to the historic production of players at that position in the draft no matter what) then the correct economic strategy in nearly all cases is to get the cheaper player and coach them up.

You cannot have 53 starters on a football team (even without a salary cap, starter quality players would find their way to starting positions on other teams no matter what you pay). You seem to think these backup positions are better filled by Free Agents who you pay inflated salaries to by necessity, whereas I think you're better off drafting them. The latter has the dual benefit of a) you pay them peanuts relative what they are worth and often times these players are better than the "proven" free agents you spent a fortune on.

You're philosophically adverse to the Salary Cap system that we are (thankfully) stuck with. That's fine. You are arguing for a strategy that isn't feasible or intelligible given our current system. Your defense of that is something like "I'd rather be consistent than right or effective" (if I have this wrong please clarify).

There might be an intelligent case against Trading Down, but it isn't for the reasons you've listed. It isn't because Jamaal Anderson is definitely better than Gaines Adams is definitely better than Adam Carriker, as none of these players are clearly better than the others in the way that Calvin Johnson is better than Ted Ginn. There isn't consensus on Andereson as the best DE of this draft.

Instead we could trade down, get a Carriker or Adams who might be better, as well as an additional 2nd, 3rd, or 4th (or some combination therein) rounder(s). Further, to appeal to your own FA strategy, because draft picks are paid according to their position, we'll save money by doing so. We can use this saved money to overpay Free Agents in 2008, which I'm sure would please you to no end.

Right?

[Monkart]

In regard to your two analogies.... if there was a 10 year old or a triple amputee willing to take those challenges, I'd be very interested in watching them get the pummeling they deserve.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: come on now!!! you've said you had no humor... :laugh: :laugh: You would like to see a 10 year old (let's not forget a 10 year olds mentality now) get pummeled by Ali ( I'm sure he would never beat on a 10 year old)???

Even if the 10 year old agreed, it's against everything that's right.

Please tell me you were joking or not thinking clearly on that one.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I understand what you're saying, why you're wrong is that these players weren't significantly different years later when the Redskins picked them up (as often as not they were worse or produced less -- as with Portis or Marcus Washington). The only thing that had changed was the amount we paid them; more.

There was one major thing that changed between the time those players were drafted and when we acquired them... They'd proven they can play and be successful in the NFL. There is no player in any draft class who has done that. Unfortunately we've generally elected to sign the WRONG free agents or trade for the WRONG players. It's the fact that we've acquired the wrong free agents and tradees rather than the idea that we've acquired them the wrong way. Generally because we have no overall team philosophy. At least that's how I see it.

I think your favoritism of Free Agents over draft picks suggest you don't truly grasp the economics of the game. If you are choosing between two players, one of whom must be purchased at a market price against competing teams, and another that you have exclusive rights to and is paid a predetermined amount contingent on where they are drafted (and is low relative to the historic production of players at that position in the draft no matter what) then the correct economic strategy in nearly all cases is to get the cheaper player and coach them up.

I understand the NFL's economic system. It makes me want to puke. It's pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe is good and right.

The problem with your analogy is that the player with whom you have exclusive rights and who is paid a predetermined amount has never proven they deserve even a single dollar of whatever predetermined amount they're going to get. Additionally, if they do turn out to be a bust, they're unlikely to be able to be cut because of the salary cap ramifications unless they're a low round pick to start with.

I have NO INTEREST in players with "potential". I expect immediate results. If you need to "coach a guy up", you probably shouldn't have drafted him to begin with. At least so far as my view goes.

You cannot have 53 starters on a football team (even without a salary cap, starter quality players would find their way to starting positions on other teams no matter what you pay). You seem to think these backup positions are better filled by Free Agents who you pay inflated salaries to by necessity, whereas I think you're better off drafting them. The latter has the dual benefit of a) you pay them peanuts relative what they are worth and often times these players are better than the "proven" free agents you spent a fortune on.

Obviously no team would ever have 53 starters. Unfortunately the way the current system is set up, the league doesn't appear to want a team to have more than 10-15 starting caliber on their roster.

I think that both starting and free agent positions should be filled by players who have PROVEN they can do the job at the NFL level. Whereas, you're apparently willing to play Russian Roulette with the roster.

You're philosophically adverse to the Salary Cap system that we are (thankfully) stuck with. That's fine. You are arguing for a strategy that isn't feasible or intelligible given our current system. Your defense of that is something like "I'd rather be consistent than right or effective" (if I have this wrong please clarify).

Actually the defense is "I would rather do things what I consider to be the right way and LOSE, than to buy into a system I consider totally improper and WIN." It's kind of the martyr's concept. Better to lose the game than to lose one's soul.

There might be an intelligent case against Trading Down, but it isn't for the reasons you've listed. It isn't because Jamaal Anderson is definitely better than Gaines Adams is definitely better than Adam Carriker, as none of these players are clearly better than the others in the way that Calvin Johnson is better than Ted Ginn. There isn't consensus on Andereson as the best DE of this draft.

Instead we could trade down, get a Carriker or Adams who might be better, as well as an additional 2nd, 3rd, or 4th (or some combination therein) rounder(s). Further, to appeal to your own FA strategy, because draft picks are paid according to their position, we'll save money by doing so. We can use this saved money to overpay Free Agents in 2008, which I'm sure would please you to no end.

Actually, in your analogy, here is what I would prefer to see....

Once the Redskins front office determines that there is no college player who plays a position we need serious improvement at who is worth the #6 pick in this draft they should begin contacting other teams and see if they can get a young, somewhat proven player at one of those positions in exchange for the #6 pick. If that is not possible, I'd cancel the hotel reservations for NYC (or wherever the draft is this year) and inform the NFL League office that we will not be participating in this year's draft. That would save us money both this year AND next year to potentially sign Free Agents.

[InTikiITrust]

It's not a matter of ignoring tthe schemes/systems that a team runs. It's a matter that I disagree with most of them. To me, most of the "schemes" out there in the league currently are simply ways to hide the inadequacies of players who shouldn't be on the field to start with by being passive instead of aggressive. It happens on both sides of the ball, and the Patriots are a great example of it. The can plug anybody in because they don't expect their players to actually MAKE BIG PLAYS. They simple expect them not to make mistakes. That's not what I'm looking for in either an offensive or a defensive scheme.

How many perfect players are there in the league. List every perfect player out there. Peyton Manning? Tomlinson? Who else?

Do you honestly think you can field a team in which every player is without flaw? Do you think that you can find 53 guys who play in the NFL right now, at each position, without flaws?

List me a QB, a RB, one WR, five guys on the OL, and a tight end without flaws in their game. List me two DTs, two DEs, an MLB, two OLB, two safeties and two CBs without flaws in their game.

Go ahead. List them. I'm waiting. And when you're done with that, list their perfect backups.

[Skin Patrol]

There was one major thing that changed between the time those players were drafted and when we acquired them... They'd proven they can play and be successful in the NFL. There is no player in any draft class who has done that. Unfortunately we've generally elected to sign the WRONG free agents or trade for the WRONG players. It's the fact that we've acquired the wrong free agents and tradees rather than the idea that we've acquired them the wrong way. Generally because we have no overall team philosophy. At least that's how I see it.

Problem: Say what you want about Adam Archuleta, but he had successfully performed in the NFL up to the moment we picked him up. Per you, that's the basis we had to evaluate him and that's the basis we used. It was the wrong basis.

2nd, you're making a far greater distinction than I think is warranted. Free Agents have proven themselves at the NFL level, but College Players don't just randomly appear in the Draft and learn to play this crazy game we call "Football". The vast majority have been proving themselves for 2-4 years at the Collegiate Level against many athletes who will also compete at the NFL level.

Many College Players have proven themselves better capable of NFL play than many NFL Free Agents, which is why many of the latter find themselves on practice squads or cut throughout the season. Troy Vincent, as an example, has proven less over the course of his career than Jamaal Anderson has (apparently). Even according to you I would wager.

I just find the distinction you are stuck on ridiculous. Player evaluation begins at the Collegiate Level. You are trying to say that the only way to accurately measure a player's ability is to watch them play in the NFL, but I can name plenty of counterexamples where successful NFL players fail in their new homes, or get worse over time, etc. etc.

I understand the NFL's economic system. It makes me want to puke. It's pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe is good and right.

Ok?

The problem with your analogy is that the player with whom you have exclusive rights and who is paid a predetermined amount has never proven they deserve even a single dollar of whatever predetermined amount they're going to get. Additionally, if they do turn out to be a bust, they're unlikely to be able to be cut because of the salary cap ramifications unless they're a low round pick to start with.

First, from above players are capable of proving they are worth money without ever playing a single down in the NFL.

Second you're simply mistaken about the cap ramifications. Draft Picks are far more expendable than Free Agents, which is why draft picks are annually booted from every team in the NFL.

Strange that you complain about Draft Picks being unable to cut when it is our FREE AGENTS Brandon Lloyd and Adam Archuleta that are on the team precisely because of their cap ramifications. Rocky McIntosh was the highest Redskins draft pick last year and would've cost us around 1.8M had we cut him the day after we drafted him. Ladell Betts would have cost us over 4.5M the day after we resigned him. Despite Adam Archuleta turning out to be a "bust" (yet to be proven, perhaps) he will cost us nearly 10M to cut. Your understanding of the cap ramifications of Draft Picks vs. that of Free Agents doesn't mesh with reality.

I have NO INTEREST in players with "potential". I expect immediate results. If you need to "coach a guy up", you probably shouldn't have drafted him to begin with. At least so far as my view goes.

Why are you so certain that Free Agents will offer "certain" results immediately? Because they did so in the past? That's an honest question, because it seems as if you think Free Agents always play to their prior ability, which is demonstrably false and necessarily untrue given the impact of ageing.

Second, if you don't want players with "potential" why are you so insistent on Jamaal Anderson over Gaines Adams? Are YOU certain that Anderson is better than Adams is better than Carriker is better than Crowder?

Obviously no team would ever have 53 starters. Unfortunately the way the current system is set up, the league doesn't appear to want a team to have more than 10-15 starting caliber on their roster.

Every single starter in the NFL played College Football. What incredible Football Talents are currently sitting on benches that you think would make great starters, if only the salary cap would let them? How could the NFL produce more than 10-15 starting quality players more accurately than they do already? Where are these mystical additional players coming from, exactly? Who is being prevented from playing by the current system that would improve the quality of the game? Nate Clements cannot play for more than 1 team, remember?

I think that both starting and free agent positions should be filled by players who have PROVEN they can do the job at the NFL level. Whereas, you're apparently willing to play Russian Roulette with the roster.

Depends how you look at it. I think investing 100% in free agency is playing Russian Roulette with our money. Scratch that, it's guaranteeing failure as it is clearly an economically inefficient means of filling a roster with quality players.

Actually the defense is "I would rather do things what I consider to be the right way and LOSE, than to buy into a system I consider totally improper and WIN." It's kind of the martyr's concept. Better to lose the game than to lose one's soul.

What a strange philosophy from a person who proclaims to be so interested in WINNING. So is it WINNING that matters or doing things "right"? For the rest of the NFL watching public, you've made a distinction with no difference: The "right" behavior is the one that produces "Wins".

Also, earlier in this same thread you promised there was no hyperbole. And now our souls are on the line? Seriously?

What great wrong are you martyring yourself to? Better to fail miserably in protest of the Salary Cap, says you? Is that about right?

Once the Redskins front office determines that there is no college player who plays a position we need serious improvement at who is worth the #6 pick in this draft they should begin contacting other teams and see if they can get a young, somewhat proven player at one of those positions in exchange for the #6 pick. If that is not possible, I'd cancel the hotel reservations for NYC (or wherever the draft is this year) and inform the NFL League office that we will not be participating in this year's draft. That would save us money both this year AND next year to potentially sign Free Agents.

You seem to think there is an unlimited source of "Free Agents" who have "proven themselves at the NFL level". This isn't the case. Regardless if there were a salary cap or else none, every single "Free Agent" who has proven themselves at the NFL level will find a team. Teams must field 53 players, and every single team in the NFL fields Collegiate players... not because they are playing russian roulette but because of necessity. If the Redskins simply refuse to draft (to save money) then they'll still be forced to sign EITHER undrafted Rookies (who haven't proven anything according to you) or else cut Free Agents (who most likely have proven that they are failures).

Your imagined NFL is populated by a bunch of victim players who could be playing except for those pesky rules -- this simply isn't the case. No matter what the financial rules of the NFL, there are still only 352 offensive starters and 352 defensive starters in the NFL. Benched Free Agents haven't proven anything (according to you) and some of those 704 starters will have proven over the course of a season that they aren't starter quality. Some of them will retire. Some of them will suffer injuries in the offseason. Some of them will be arrested. Etc.

So 704 starters need to be filled from a pool of players. If we followed your advice, that pool would be prohibitively small to fill those rosters, as there aren't enough "Proven Free Agents" to fill those needs. Rookies must be used. Unproven Free Agents must be used. No matter what you say.

[26fan4life]

Sorry to inform you guys but the only way we get better for next season alone is by staying at 6 and picking up branch. we can worry about future seasons when we have more first day picks but right now Branch would have the most impact. He would require two offensive lineman on every single snap, giving griff, carter and phillip daniels all one on one matchups. I know you guys think 2/3 of these potential one on one matchups can be won for us but i even think it could be 3/3. Give phillip daniels one more year, I promise he can pick up a couple of sacks for us with one on one matchups, but if not atleast we know he's ok against the run. Not only would branch provide more opportunities for daniels,carter and griff but for our 3 linebackers behind them. Our Lbs would be able to penetrate so much more easily because of the matchup problems branch alone poses. let's face it, our LBs just aren't that good, atleast not now ( I know rocky can turn out to be great but he has yet to start and yes he have MW but he isn't superman!) Branch would make every player around him better and we would have a dominant front seven, something we needed desperately last season. And we all know what a great front seven could do for a struggling secondary...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

How many perfect players are there in the league. List every perfect player out there. Peyton Manning? Tomlinson? Who else?

Do you honestly think you can field a team in which every player is without flaw? Do you think that you can find 53 guys who play in the NFL right now, at each position, without flaws?

:applause: :notworthy :applause:

Way to go. I really wouldn't have believed that anybody could have missed the point of my post THAT COMPLETELY without actually trying to do so. You've upheld my absolute lack of confidence in the cognitive ability of the generation that's younger than I am.

I never said anything about perfection. I did reference players whose talent was inadequate to play in the league, but I never mentioned perfection. There's a level of skill between those two concepts that's generally refered to as Adequate or Competent.

Let me see if I can be more direct and use smaller words so you might actually understand what I'm saying this time.....

Most of the schemes that teams use in the NFL these days are in place because the teams are not able or willing to procure enough truly COMPETENT starting caliber players, never mind Stars, to do anything else. That's partially a matter of the salary cap. In some places it's a matter of the amount of money beneath the cap that the ownership wants to set as their own personal spending limit. It may be a matter of players not wanting to play for a specific franchise, or other reasons. Whatever the reason, these teams do not have the talent to go out and play an aggressive style of play, so they fall back into these schemes, designed to get the most out of the marginal talent they have available to them.

The New England Patriots are a good example of this. They constantly plug new players into roles in their offensive and defensive schemes because neither of those schemes requires playmakers or even truly competent players. That's because both schemes are designed to capitalize on the other team's mistakes rather than forcing those mistakes or simply overwhelming the opponent though superior talent and skill. You only need to look at the two playoff games the Patriots played this year to see exactly what I'm talking about.

In contrast to that, what I would prefer to see is an aggressive, attacking offensive and defensive system that utilizes COMPETENT players and STARS to force the opponent to react to what we're doing. A system that is active, rather than passive or reactive. Supposedly Greg Williams was bringing that sort of Defensive system when he was hired a couple years ago. I've yet to see it.

[Skin Patrol]

Most of the schemes that teams use in the NFL these days are in place because the teams are not able or willing to procure enough truly COMPETENT starting caliber players, never mind Stars, to do anything else. That's partially a matter of the salary cap. In some places it's a matter of the amount of money beneath the cap that the ownership wants to set as their own personal spending limit. It may be a matter of players not wanting to play for a specific franchise, or other reasons. Whatever the reason, these teams do not have the talent to go out and play an aggressive style of play, so they fall back into these schemes, designed to get the most out of the marginal talent they have available to them...

In contrast to that, what I would prefer to see is an aggressive, attacking offensive and defensive system that utilizes COMPETENT players and STARS to force the opponent to react to what we're doing. A system that is active, rather than passive or reactive. Supposedly Greg Williams was bringing that sort of Defensive system when he was hired a couple years ago. I've yet to see it.

The question Mass, is what 22 players would you put on this roster that aren't currently on rosters already? You seem to think that players that aren't good enough to play in the NFL are currently playing in the NFL. Who would you replace them with? You've ruled out Collegiate Players. You've ruled out Unproven Free Agents.

There is a logical limit to the amount of talent in the league. Please explain how you would replace the players that are currently starting but do not deserve to be.