I need to know something in a poll form.

[Art]

Here's the issue that people are raising. From a strategic standpoint, the selection of an additional RB was a risk mitigation strategy, one that the Redskins were willing to invest a 3rd round selection in. Regardless of the choice of RB, the assessment of Redskins management was that RB was the greatest area of need for the team, assuming they wanted to mitigate the risk by giving up a 3rd round selection vice simply "assuming" the risk (meaning doing nothing). It's a perfectly acceptable thing for anyone looking at this situation to question the decision here. Was RB really the greatest area of risk? Many last year were saying, "No - look at the defensive line!" If the Redskins were going to mitigate risk using a 3rd round selection, in retrospect, I think we can all agree that Dline was a greater risk area.

Bingo. We can't agree that the dline was the greater risk area, because reality informs us it was not. YOU think it. Therefore, YOU have allowed your thinking to invalidate that of the people running the systems. You believe they must not understand what's going well and what's going poorly in their systems and if they knew what you knew, they'd have put a higher priority on fixing it. The team puts a huge priority on fixing problems EVERY offseason. This year, the priority was on fixing everything on defense BUT the defensive line. So, obviously, the risk mitigation would not have been the defensive line, but, greater depth and coverage options in the secondary and a deeper set of linebackers. Of course, the team banked on a starter on a Top 5 defense helping do that, but he was not able to do that as he was a natural nickel player for us.

You do well to explain the very point I've attempted to make, though. YOU know better than those who run the system what makes their systems go and you apparently know how every player is doing on every play in the system to know any of this. Can you please explain, on the third play of the Vikings game, what the play call was, and what the job of each of the 11 men was. I can ask this question of any defensive coach at Redskins Park, and they can have the play up in five seconds with the system they have in place, and they can tell me.

You do the same please.

[Major Harris]

Most tackles in the running game are made by LB's attacking the line of scrimmage while the Dlineman occupy blockers.

We addressed that area too

so we addressed the need for a tackle that will draw double teams?

[SkinsFTW]

Dude, we stopped no run. Blache can take his corvette motor, his suv, and his giggle and still see that we were ranked at the bottom at stopping the run. Which is what he claimed, jovially, that we stopped above all. We stopped nobody last year.

[zoony]

I thought our linebacker play last year was horrible and I was proven right when Dale was fired.

I absolutely agree.

Last season I was screaming at the top of my lungs about how terrible our LB play was. It got to the point where I was watching them on almost every play. Terrible, absolutely terrible. Incorrect angles, poor reads, terrible tackling... and I'm including MW in this by the way. He had a terrible season.

[zoony]

so we addressed the need for a tackle that will draw double teams?

Who was that tackle in 2004 - 2005?

[dfbovey]

Fine, I'm OK with that. Are we going to be getting any of these linemen? You know, the ones that will occupy blockers? I'm having trouble recognizing any of these guys standing up, as they seem to be on the ground most plays.

Or on the bench injured... because they are old and near the end of their careers. But no, the line couldn't possibly be a major need. Because we didn't address it and Art says so.

[Major Harris]

Who was that tackle in 2004 - 2005?

the same guy that anchored a horrendous line in '06. the same guy that is over 30 years old and was hampered by injuries. he doesn't demand double teams. he will get them occasionally.

you guys keep bringing up lb's....well not too many people are ****in' about the moves made at lb. most realize that was a need, too.

[skinsfanno9]

Bingo. We can't agree that the dline was the greater risk area, because reality informs us it was not. YOU think it. Therefore, YOU have allowed your thinking to invalidate that of the people running the systems. You believe they must not understand what's going well and what's going poorly in their systems and if they knew what you knew, they'd have put a higher priority on fixing it. The team puts a huge priority on fixing problems EVERY offseason. This year, the priority was on fixing everything on defense BUT the defensive line. So, obviously, the risk mitigation would not have been the defensive line, but, greater depth and coverage options in the secondary and a deeper set of linebackers. Of course, the team banked on a starter on a Top 5 defense helping do that, but he was not able to do that as he was a natural nickel player for us.

You do well to explain the very point I've attempted to make, though. YOU know better than those who run the system what makes their systems go and you apparently know how every player is doing on every play in the system to know any of this. Can you please explain, on the third play of the Vikings game, what the play call was, and what the job of each of the 11 men was. I can ask this question of any defensive coach at Redskins Park, and they can have the play up in five seconds with the system they have in place, and they can tell me.

You do the same please.

Does this mean you're going to bypass my posts that deal with the issue of multiple people in organizations working together making bad strategic decisions? If so, I guess I'll bow out at this point, because this goes to the heart of why your position is silly, and again goes to the heart of my comment with the Ducket situation. You've bypassed pretty much everything of value I've said that completely counters your argument and yet again make this a "my knowledge versus their knowledge" situation. You keep talking as if the Redskins front office is a singular entity - this simply isn't true, as my other posts clarified. This is the heart of the issue - not the knowledge of the people running the Redskins. To a person, I'll give you that they ALL know far more than me, including Dan Snyder. To say its not possible for a large group of experts to create strategic folly belies any rationale argument put forward anywhere. The history of management (and warfare for that matter) is repleat with exactly the opposite of this.

[swisha]

In no way am I being arrogant. You are being arrogant to think the people who run the system can't possibly know what it takes to run their system, but that you, a fan, one who probably hasn't watched even every play by his team, IS qualified. The arrogance isn't in me. Remember, I disclaimed early on as a defensive line supporter that I was not correct in my views because I am not arrogant enough to presume my concepts trump that of those who best know what is required to make the top spin. When you agree to this fundamental statement, my guess is you'll cease being so arrogant.

You're being funny now. When have I ever said I know MORE than the coaches. In fact, the first I did was concede that the coaches know than me and I cannot run the defense better.

My first post in this thread:

As far as if the coaches know more about this defense or I do, obviously the coaches know more, but that doesn't stop me from questioning their moves. Because in the end, nothing is for sure. Thus, I have the right to question any thing team does.

You, however, decided the coaches know every thing because it's their system. They cannot incorrectly evaluate the elements in their own system. Thus, all the weaknesses of team must be identified right? And anoyne of us who dares to question those assessments does not have the mental capacity to fanthom that the coaches are doing what is absolutely right.

[Art]

art, i agree that you must stop the run. but sorry, that doesn't start at safety, at least in most peoples minds.

Correct. So, when we prioritize seven offseason acquisitions in the back seven, what's it mean. The answer is right there for you.

[zoony]

I think at this point further talk is pointless.

We'll see how they do this year.

I think our defense is going to surprise the hell out of some people. Other's think we're going to be the league's laughing stock. I guess we'll see in about 4 months.

But I hope all of you guys eat your medicine if the D performs. (I certianly will if it doesn't)

[DjTj]

so we addressed the need for a tackle that will draw double teams?

That player didn't exist in this draft. Okoye was not that player. There were clearly huge question marks about Branch that made him drop out of the first round.

There isn't even a big tackle available in free agency right now. Maybe after June 1 someone will become available, but you can't address a need when there is no player available to fill that need.

[DCsportsfan53]

I think at this point further talk is pointless.

We'll see how they do this year.

I think our defense is going to surprise the hell out of some people. Other's think we're going to be the league's laughing stock. I guess we'll see in about 4 months.

But I hope all of you guys eat your medicine if the D performs. (I certianly will if it doesn't)

I agree. I think we may actually have more talent on this D right now than we've had as long as GW has been here. I'd be surprised if we aren't at least a top 12 D next year but I'm expecting top 10.

[CM916]

Either the coaches are nuts, or they know more than we do. I'm inclined towards the latter despite the several minutes I stared blankly at the TV after we picked up a QB with just two picks left and no D-line guys.

[Art]

Fine, I'm OK with that. Are we going to be getting any of these linemen? You know, the ones that will occupy blockers? I'm having trouble recognizing any of these guys standing up, as they seem to be on the ground most plays.

And here is obviously where you're wrong, right? People have incorrectly explained we need a pass rush lineman because teams had 10 seconds to throw and you can't cover for that long. That wasn't our problem last year in the passing game. Our problem was teams were able to throw on timing so often because coverage was exploitable so frequently. Now, you're telling us you know what we did against the run that apparently was so bad it had to be corrected, all the while knowing the evaluation of our play led the people who know what they were calling to believe this was not the area that let us down most. Again, do you think your memory, or the system evaluation matters most in any of this?

[MossIsDaBoss]

i know more because the coaches themselves said D-Line was an area of concern and then totally avoided those needs. They are confused.

[Major Harris]

Correct. So, when we prioritize seven offseason acquisitions in the back seven, what's it mean. The answer is right there for you.

it could mean a lot of things.

it could mean that they have a target for 6/1. it could mean that they had hoped to trade down and couldn't find the right partner.

or, it could mean that they thought the secondary was a bigger priority in terms of need. with which, i disagree with. and that's ok. doesn't mean i think i'm smarter than them, matter of fact, i'm hoping that they are right. i want to be wrong.

[Art]

Dude, we stopped no run. Blache can take his corvette motor, his suv, and his giggle and still see that we were ranked at the bottom at stopping the run. Which is what he claimed, jovially, that we stopped above all. We stopped nobody last year.

Largely correct. We stopped no one. We were horrible against the run and the pass. And, to correct this, seven guys in the back seven were added. What's that mean?

[PeterMP]

Correct. So, when we prioritize seven offseason acquisitions in the back seven, what's it mean. The answer is right there for you.

I have a question for you Art. A team that has a normal system set up w/ a clear GM and a clear coach. The Coach tells the GM, I want a players that can do X, Y, and Z. The GM gets players based on the coaches instructions year after year, but the team continues to lose. Should this team fire their coach? What if they fire the GM, get a new one, and the losing continues?

[Major Harris]

That player didn't exist in this draft. Okoye was not that player. There were clearly huge question marks about Branch that made him drop out of the first round.

There isn't even a big tackle available in free agency right now. Maybe after June 1 someone will become available, but you can't address a need when there is no player available to fill that need.

you don't think okoye has a chance to be an impact defensive lineman?

[skinsfanno9]

And here is obviously where you're wrong, right? People have incorrectly explained we need a pass rush lineman because teams had 10 seconds to throw and you can't cover for that long. That wasn't our problem last year in the passing game. Our problem was teams were able to throw on timing so often because coverage was exploitable so frequently. Now, you're telling us you know what we did against the run that apparently was so bad it had to be corrected, all the while knowing the evaluation of our play led the people who know what they were calling to believe this was not the area that let us down most. Again, do you think your memory, or the system evaluation matters most in any of this?

How 'bout dealing with my serious posts that address the heart of the issue - not addressing seriously my joke posts? Check back a page or two - you'll find two or three that you've ignored that take the rug out of your position, or maybe you've already noticed that, which is why you're responding to this instead?

[dfbovey]

Correct. So, when we prioritize seven offseason acquisitions in the back seven, what's it mean. The answer is right there for you.

The answer is that the front office feels they can get by with what they have on the defensive line. Which, they could be wrong about. As you yourself have said, they aren't very good at evaluating their own talent. And even if you didn't want to admit that I could point you towards several instances where the front office and coaching staff fell flat on their face and showed bad judgement.

But yeah, knowing that we should all follow blindly and have faith that the team made the right decisions this offseason. Even though their track record isn't deserving of such faith.

You'll just have to come to grips with the fact that people don't trust this front office right now. And until they actually show they are on the right track, fans have the right to question what they do.

[Art]

You're being funny now. When have I ever said I know MORE than the coaches. In fact, the first I did was concede that the coaches know than me and I cannot run the defense better.

My first post in this thread:

You, however, decided the coaches know every thing because it's their system. They cannot incorrectly evaluate the elements in their own system. Thus, all the weaknesses of team must be identified right? And anoyne of us who dares to question those assessments does not have the mental capacity to fanthom that the coaches are doing what is absolutely right.

Correct.

If you dare question the fundamental theory that the staff running the systems know where failures in it came from, you have a mental issue that should be corrected. Once you realize that, indeed, they have identified the problems in the system they ran, you'll realize they went about trying to fix them. Now, a number of things can happen from those efforts. We can discover they made bad choices in the who to fill the what. We can discover some of the what we have left, deteriorates through injury or age in a way not entirely expected or mitigated, creating new priorities, which every team has, every year.

When Williams and crew came in here, they immediately added three starting defensive linemen to help things. Last year they added one more and two rookies. Trust me, they are more than willing to address the future and the needs of the system. Which should draw some level of comfort.

[Beaudry]

Today is the day that Art officially sells out. You are just another representative for the Washington Redskins now. When people were worried about "The Merge" it was stuff like this that they were talking about.

[skinsfanno9]

Correct.

If you dare question the fundamental theory that the staff running the systems know where failures in it came from, you have a mental issue that should be corrected.

OK, so no need to question the issue that it's an organization of people, all who feel they have expertise, all who are working together to agree upon an evaluation and execute a strategy, right? Everywhere else, strategic and evaluation blunders are made based on poor decision making processes, not lack of knowledge, but in football management this is an impossibility? Hmm, I guess football management is immune to the issues that plague every other organizations. Previous to this thread, I'da thought someone had a mental issue if they said this, but seeing as how you're not going to address these points (which I've stated in detail two or three times), I guess you must be right...

Enjoy the discussion all.