I need to know something in a poll form.

[Walking Deadman]

So if we blow on defense.....whose fault is it? And who should be held accountable?

Well, if it is from injuries on the D-line, I think Vinny, Snyder and Gibbs could be blamed for not making moves to have more players there.

You could also blame the D-line coach who gave Williams, who then gave Gibbs the thumbs up on the D-line.

They feel they're healthy and they'll be fine. If this happens and we're playoff bound.....I'll admit it that I made a mistake. It happens, I'm a fan and not a HC or coordinator, nor do I have access to the team doc and injury reports or get to see the player on a daily basis.

I admitted when I expected us to go to the playoffs last year, go 11-5 and possibly win the East. I'll admit that I was wrong when the DL pounds the crap out of opposing RBs and QBs this year (and much happier that our current guys could get the job done) and that our coaches know way more than me (and they should ).

[jrfriedm]

While I completely admit that, the coaching staff knows more about football than I could ever hope to know, that doesn't mean that I don't have a right to be unhappy about their decisions today. I think that the D-line was an area of obvious need and not to address is just ridicules.

[TheLongshot]

GW has the luxury of doing this when he could rely on the defensive line to stop the run. Sadly, last year we had one of the worst run and pass defenses I've ever seen.

A couple things I'd like to add to this:

1) Were there linemen out there who would be an improvement over what we have? There really wasn't much in FA, and there certainly wasn't going to be much help at the bottom end of the draft. I mean, we have seen what kind of struggles Golston and Montgomery had last year.

It was also decided that the guys at the top of the draft were lacking in one way or another and also probably wouldn't be that much of a factor, or, at least as much of a factor as Landry. This was probably one place where having a #2 or #3 draft pick would have helped.

2) Is it solely because of the defensive line that we had problems stopping the run? Certainly, some blame can be laid at their feet, but the same goes for the LBs. The play there was poor overall. The good thing is, there was a player that the coaches knew would be an instant improvement over what we had. Unfortunately, that guy wasn't out there for the D-Line.

Sometimes, you can't address every problem in the offseason. You do what you can while making the best moves you can. Hell, I knew that not all of the problems of this defense were going to get solved this offseason. But, I did think that they could address enough of them so that we can get back to decent.

Jason

[Pedro]

Well, if it is from injuries on the D-line, I think Vinny, Snyder and Gibbs could be blamed for not making moves to have more players there.

You could also blame the D-line coach who gave Williams, who then gave Gibbs the thumbs up on the D-line.

They feel they're healthy and they'll be fine. If this happens and we're playoff bound.....I'll admit it that I made a mistake. It happens, I'm a fan and not a HC or coordinator, nor do I have access to the team doc and injury reports or get to see the player on a daily basis.

I admitted when I expected us to go to the playoffs last year, go 11-5 and possibly win the East. I'll admit that I was wrong when the DL pounds the crap out of opposing RBs and QBs this year (and much happier that our current guys could get the job done) and that our coaches know way more than me (and they should ).

[Hijack]

Nothing to do with the OP but:

If we stay healthy (on DL) we are playoff bound, no doubt in my mind on that.

Staying healthy (on DL) is where the doubt comes in. We don't know how Montgomery and Golsten are coming along which is where the doubt is. We have no proof they will be better than what we saw last season which wasn't good enough to cover Big Joe being injured.

Our coaches appear to be ok with it and as we stand right now we have to take their judgement. If it turns out they were wrong it's a stick to hit whichever ones are sent packing at the end of the season.

[/Hijack]

[skinsfanno9]

If you wish to offer your thoughts that Nelson is better than Landry, or there were better backers, or Patrick was the obvious pick at TE or a better prospect QB was available, you may well be right. What you won't be right on is in rejecting the need for the types of players taken. We needed exactly what we took more than we needed anything else.

So wait a sec, your point is that the Redskins did NOT take BPA, but they drafted first and foremost for need throughout? That they needed a safety more than they needed a Dlineman? Does this mean if they ended up rating, say, Okoye better than Landry you would have expected them to still take Landry?

This is a fine theory I guess, but to buy it, we would have to assume the Redskins FO have been lying to us. Certainly this is a possibility but another one perhaps is that they drafted BPA.

[skinsfanno9]

It was also decided that the guys at the top of the draft were lacking in one way or another and also probably wouldn't be that much of a factor, or, at least as much of a factor as Landry. This was probably one place where having a #2 or #3 draft pick would have helped.

Since 1993, the Redskins have only drafted one Dlineman in the first four rounds (Lang, 1997). I'm not sure I would have a lot of faith that they would have used it this year either. For some reason, for a LONG time, even prior to Williams, the Redskins FO really hasn't valued linemen. Pierson Prioleau is back this season so its not like the Redskins had nobody at safety. Meanwhile, we have a line of comprised of the aging and underqualified. It's hardly a stretch to question the choice of safety in the first round.

[Art]

While I completely admit that, the coaching staff knows more about football than I could ever hope to know, that doesn't mean that I don't have a right to be unhappy about their decisions today. I think that the D-line was an area of obvious need and not to address is just ridicules.

And, again, what is ridiculous about people who clearly know what they were lacking last year taking players to fill those areas rather than the areas you felt we were lacking in? You have every right to be unhappy about taking lesser players where you feel they exist. You have no right to apply your lack of knowledge as to what we need over the thoughts of those who actually know this answer. Again, the team is NEVER wrong about WHAT they need to accomplish what they want. Every team is often wrong about WHO they need to accomplish that.

The ridiculous portion of the conversation is your belief you know what we needed more than anyone else. How did you come across this special insight? I ask because I know the coaching staff watched every play by every player dozens of times just since the season ended. They've seen it on coaching tape, in the context of knowing the play call and knowing the keys each play requires. They chart this, apply simple statistical analysis and come up with a very easy, obvious, undeniable list of priorities to fix.

You probably didn't see every play by the team for the whole year, slipping in to eat or potty once or twice. You almost certainly haven't watched a single play since January. You've never seen the coaching tape. You've no idea what play was called and what reads were required. You don't know who didn't do their job and who did. You lack all this knowledge, so, I'm dying to know how you have come to a conclusion that says we needed something other than we apparently and clearly needed?

[JoeKnowsBest]

I'm going to give you a strait and honest answer. I know best, better, and everything and Dan Snyder should have hired me as head coach! Just kidding of coarse...

But seriously here's the strait answer. I think that Joe Knows Best (I came up with that stance during the Patrick Ramsey contraversy) and that Greg Williams knows defense. However, I think that Greg Blache is an idiot.

I also will tell you from playing Middle Linebacker in high school that I do have a very good idea of what goes on down on a football field. I do have an understanding of the plays and the skill sets needed for certain plays, but more so I have a better understanding of x&o's and what are good plays for certain situations, and I can pretty much tell what kind of play has been, or may have been called after seeing it unfold. I know a big difference between cover 2 zone, and cover 3 zone, or simple Tampa 2 where the MIKE LB drops back deep. As well as man on man obviously, and also a man zone with the safeties over top. (But there are a large variety of this type of play in whom is the zone). And in high school, we had a fair amount of stunts and a lot of LB blitzes but very rarely did we have the safety blitz. Most blitzes were from OLB, or a criss cross of the MLB and WLB. We also had some very good defensive linemen so we didn't really need to blitz. Plus my head coach was big on respect for the other coach and didn't like to blitz if he didn't have to.

I do not nor will I claim to know all of Gregg Williams complicated schemes with all the exotic blitz packages he does. So no, I do not know all, and I do not know better than Greg Williams, but I do have a good understanding of the tactics and strategy of the game, as well as strengths to specific postions.

In short: Joe knows Best, Williams knows D, and I know better than Blache who is a moron.... not to mention buddy buddies with the players he coaches wich has interfeared with his ability to give an honest evaluation, or to simply do his job and fulfil his obligation to the Redskins.

That is my honest, strait forward answer; Take it how you will.

[Art]

So wait a sec, your point is that the Redskins did NOT take BPA, but they drafted first and foremost for need throughout? That they needed a safety more than they needed a Dlineman? Does this mean if they ended up rating, say, Okoye better than Landry you would have expected them to still take Landry?

This is a fine theory I guess, but to buy it, we would have to assume the Redskins FO have been lying to us. Certainly this is a possibility but another one perhaps is that they drafted BPA.

I would imagine there is some mild grade differences for the first 30 or so players, before you start finding very similar grades on a bulk number of players throughout the rest of the draft. I would imagine in the fifth round, when Dallas was the pick, there were at least 10 other players, perhaps Blades among them, exactly equal in grade. Among them might have been a tight end, running back, QB, defensive end, defensive tackle, safety, corner and the pick we made.

The team, as all teams who pick BPA, consult the board, then, apply the grades to the team. If one player stands alone, and the team picks BPA, they take him. It's simple. If there are a bundle of players, the team evaluates the need. A safety in the example above would be ruled out. Blades would be ruled out because we do have Marshall and Fletcher at middle backer but only Washington at SS, where Dallas plays. The team can address needs within a BPA draft. It frequently does.

[TheLongshot]

Since 1993, the Redskins have only drafted one Dlineman in the first four rounds (Lang, 1997). I'm not sure I would have a lot of faith that they would have used it this year either. For some reason, for a LONG time, even prior to Williams, the Redskins FO really hasn't valued linemen. Pierson Prioleau is back this season so its not like the Redskins had nobody at safety. Meanwhile, we have a line of comprised of the aging and underqualified. It's hardly a stretch to question the choice of safety in the first round.

I wouldn't say that the safety position wasn't a need. There certainly was room for improvement, and depending solely on a group of journeymen, while acceptable, may not have been ideal.

But, something the FO made clear in the pre-draft press conference was that they wanted an impact player from the #6 pick. When you look at it that way, you have to figure that they felt that the D-Linemen available there would not make as much of an impact as Landry could.

Jason

[JoeKnowsBest]

P.S. You cannot argue with the output/production (or lack there of) a player or positional unit puts on the field.

The numbers don't lie. Fewest sacks in the league. Worst Turnover ratio in NFL history. Worst of all, (though mostly due to injuries in all positions) a 5-11 record.

And I should also add, 2 years ago with a top ranked defense, we had low numbers for sacks and pressures for dline players as well. Matter of fact, our player that led the team in sacks was a cornerback! :doh:

Oh, and did I mention the fact that 2 years ago even with a high ranking defense we lost a couple games because of a consistant problem to not be able to stop the run on that one side of the line? Teams like the Broncos and Giants did that offtackle run play all day long on us. Now there are a number of players to blame for that. Warrick Holdmen. Check. Sean Taylor (out of position guys!). Only on occasion, but true. But it all starts up front and the defensive end on that postion was a problem. But I thought "This defensive line was built to stop the run"? :doh:

[PeterMP]

The thing is picking players is more than just what is your greatest need. There has to be a real plan, and that's where this team continue to fails. In this case, how much money can you afford your to pay your safety's in the salary cap era?

This won't be a problem this year or even for a couple, but I guarantee you that if ST and Landry are really good players one of them will walk because we won't be able to pay that much for safety's and balance the rest of the D (or we will give them both a lot of money, and the rest of the D will suffer because we will be using inexpensive players at those positions).

That's the problem w/ this team is they don't seem to understand how to build a team. In termsl of the LB's, I'm not actually going to complain about not drafting a DL because you really are drafting depth there anyway because you are not likely to get an impact player and our depth at DL is not any worse than LB. I would like to have seen an OL.

What should they have done w/ the pick? I don't. I don't know what trades they were offered. I actually likely would have traded back (taken almost any trade) and drafted the best CB.

Now, do you want to talk about who has a better idea of how to build a team? I'll tell you I have a better idea than the people running this team right now and will point to the Duckett trade that I said as soon as it was made was a mistake.

[fansince62]

Inconceivable!

Give your opinions. Tell 'em what you think. No problem. That's what fans do and that's what places like this are for. I spent more than a minute myself in both Gibbs tenures as coach wondering what the....... And still do sometimes. However, it's always with one foot on the ground realizing there are things I just don't know. That's known, I believe, as competently incompetent. I know what I don't know, ( generally speaking). There are those,(judging from the poll), who are incompetently incompetent. They don't know what they don't know.

It's easy really. Yes. We can sit here and say there are mistakes they have made. They make them. Nobody is perfect. We can do so while they do it or use hindsight. But keep in mind that the probability is that for evey mistake or success they make or have, we see this >.< many of them. And of course, we get lucky. Fact they do this for a living. Have done so for many, many years. We're, by and large, posting right now for a reason. We don't know as much as they do. Duh. They design and call the plays, watch the film, know who does what and on what down and yardage. They watch the guys practice and are around them more so than we'll ever be. How, in all honesty, can anyone say that they know more than they do? Answer. We don't. It's just that simple. So while we sit here, (myself included), and go , let's keep that one foot down on the ground and realize we, at best, make a kind of informed opinion. If it were up to me, I would have a few people on both sides sit in for a few days with the coaches and actually get a good idea of what they're looking at.

at some point this one sided argument gets tiresome:

- there are 30+ teams in the NFL.....fans may not know the micro details...but they can see the macro details. over time they have a basis for comparatively assessing the relative merits/productivity of one management structure & vision over another

- I don't know the grade outs of the coaching staff? yea. so? you know the inner details on what is going on in Iraq? I doubt it. still vote? still have an opinion? think there are better strategies? I'd be careful about the "insider" angle as a tool for muffling debate. yeay, yea, yea. football aint war. but it's the principle in play that matters...not the subject domain.

- as you note...there is no perfect information state...even by those who consider themselves insiders.......only degrees. from this perspective...humility is probably something that should be exercised across the board....just saying... .....

- btw...at what point does one arrive at the "quantitatively" established conclusion "yup. This FO does blow. The decision process/vision has been wrong"?

In the event, I personally am less concerned about all the angst being vented over this one issue. You could see this coming quite a while ago (the signals were all there) and, when viewed in a longer-term perspective, makes sense. my problem, though I haven't completely worked it out yet, is whether the strategy being crafted by the Skins adds up over time. The discussion that needs to be held on this board is on the better ways to build a sustained championship caliber team in the era of the cap. Just as the SKins managed to be challenging for the SB about once evey 3 years during the 80s....one has to ask....what strategy can achieve the same sort of success over 5 to 10 years today? To me...it just seems that the Skins are always out of synch (for lack of a better phrase) personnel wise (i.e., offense versus defense, units within defense/offense). there will always be deltas...but on this team there is a feeling that the deltas have not been managed well - are larger than they need be. we should be seeing 2-3 years of championship caliber football followed by one/maybe 2 years of downtime as the team maneuvers/reloads. we aren't seeing this.

[dfbovey]

And, here's what you're wee brain can't process. Archuleta was a GREAT idea. Not the player, but the concept of how they envisioned using him. As we've said, now repeatedly in this thread and seen you ignore, the actual players chosen to accomplish the need may not always work out, but, they are ALWAYS right as to the need. Landry can blow chunks and not be a bad idea. Archuleta did and wasn't. But, you'd have to be willing to understand how these two statements are both true and I fear you can't.

What your brain can't process is that it was a miserable idea. Archuleta didn't fit the system and we were lucky enough to have yet another player give back money to get out of a miserable situation.

A good front office would have looked at the player's skill set, realized he didn't fit and never would have made Archuleta the richest safety in the league.

The smart front office would have stuck with Ryan Clark with less money and kept a perfectly funtional safety duo alone. But no, the grass is always greener.

Is this all hind sight? Sure, but like this poll would suggest... a professional football front office should have the foresight to get this stuff right. That way fans like me wouldn't have a reason to point out flaws.

[UK Skins]

Art, I can't decide what you planned to gain from such a carefully worded poll. I hope you aren't trying to stifle discussion (even ignorant discussion) - I never saw you as an apologist for the Redskin FO.

Of course none of us know what the coaches are trying to do. They (hopefully) have a strategy and a game plan. What we can, as fans, is discuss and debate whether it is working. But worse, we can also discuss and debate whether they do actually have a strategy or game plan. I suspect it is this latter question that you would rather we did not ask.

Putting this practically, I am an auditor. One of the things I do is look at management's processes. The majority of my work consists of assessing whether management have an appropriate process that is efficient and effective. I then have to decide whether failures within the organisation are down to that process not working properly (as intended) or whether the process is broken or, possibly sometimes even, non existent.

So spelling it out in Redskins terms. Do the coaches have a strategy for hiring players and fitting them into a team, do they have a game day plan for shutting down opposition offences and scoring points against opposition defences, and, if so, do those plans actually work as intended? And is it all right with you if we continue to discuss those issues??

Damn, fansince62 just put it better than I ever could......

[Philip Pease]

i trust joe gibbs with my team

Yeah, me too.

In looking at the draft - suppose the coaches said our biggest need is to create turnovers. Just maybe they said lets get the hardest hitting guys and guys that have a nose for the ball and guys that will give 100% on every play. Gee, maybe the coaches have the right idea and the guys they drafted look good.

I am enjoying this thread. The really great feeling I get from being a Redskin fan is being close to the whole team and so I really don't criticise my team. It's like they are my teammates.

The season that we made the playoffs was great. Last season was a big disappointment. I'm about over it.

[skinsfanno9]

I would imagine there is some mild grade differences for the first 30 or so players, before you start finding very similar grades on a bulk number of players throughout the rest of the draft. I would imagine in the fifth round, when Dallas was the pick, there were at least 10 other players, perhaps Blades among them, exactly equal in grade. Among them might have been a tight end, running back, QB, defensive end, defensive tackle, safety, corner and the pick we made.

The team, as all teams who pick BPA, consult the board, then, apply the grades to the team. If one player stands alone, and the team picks BPA, they take him. It's simple. If there are a bundle of players, the team evaluates the need. A safety in the example above would be ruled out. Blades would be ruled out because we do have Marshall and Fletcher at middle backer but only Washington at SS, where Dallas plays. The team can address needs within a BPA draft. It frequently does.

Personally I have no problem with their later picks. But you bypassed my question about the first round pick. If they had rated Okoye as the BPA, would they still have taken Landry in your opinion? Is this what you're saying?

[JoeKnowsBest]

at some point this one sided argument gets tiresome:

- there are 30+ teams in the NFL.....fans may not know the micro details...but they can see the macro details. over time they have a basis for comparatively assessing the relative merits/productivity of one management structure & vision over another

- I don't know the grade outs of the coaching staff? yea. so? you know the inner details on what is going on in Iraq? I doubt it. still vote? still have an opinion? think there are better strategies? I'd be careful about the "insider" angle as a tool for muffling debate. yeay, yea, yea. football aint war. but it's the principle in play that matters...not the subject domain.

- as you note...there is no perfect information state...even by those who consider themselves insiders.......only degrees. from this perspective...humility is probably something that should be exercised across the board....just saying... .....

- btw...at what point does one arrive at the "quantitatively" established conclusion "yup. This FO does blow. The decision process/vision has been wrong"?

In the event, I personally am less concerned about all the angst being vented over this one issue. You could see this coming quite a while ago (the signals were all there) and, when viewed in a longer-term perspective, makes sense. my problem, though I haven't completely worked it out yet, is whether the strategy being crafted by the Skins adds up over time. The discussion that needs to be held on this board is on the better ways to build a sustained championship caliber team in the era of the cap. Just as the SKins managed to be challenging for the SB about once evey 3 years during the 80s....one has to ask....what strategy can achieve the same sort of success over 5 to 10 years today? To me...it just seems that the Skins are always out of synch (for lack of a better phrase) personnel wise (i.e., offense versus defense, units within defense/offense). there will always be deltas...but on this team there is a feeling that the deltas have not been managed well - are larger than they need be. we should be seeing 2-3 years of championship caliber football followed by one/maybe 2 years of downtime as the team maneuvers/reloads. we aren't seeing this.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Art]

DFB,

Archuleta was a mistake in evaluation of a player, but not in fit. He was sought to provide very specific, very identifiable things. It was thought he would not need to provide other things because that would be covered elsewhere. He did not work out and that's too bad. But, the idea behind his addition was a good one because the staff knew it needed that type of player with what it was trying to accomplish. Archuleta had weaknesses that prevented his success, no doubt. So, the execution in getting what you needed was poor, but, rejecting the premise is ignorant on your part.

UK,

I've now seen a couple of times in a few posts the hint of the team not having a plan. I think that's the easiest of all things to see. The team identified need and sought to fix it everywhere it could throughout the offseason. Gibbs even told you he'd be taking linebackers today, and he was right. There's no lack of plan. That plan changes constantly as players succeed and players fail, obviously, by necessity.

Brandon Lloyd was sought to replace Patten because Patten was generally hurt and unable to fill the role we needed from him. Lloyd was unable to as well last year, so, unless he improves, the plan will be to replace him soon. There's no shortage of clear planning in everything we do. From how the contracts layer together, to how we go about prioritizing what we need to do to improve. Last year there was a problem in the execution we hadn't had for a couple of years.

But, even that probably wasn't our biggest problem, which, honestly, was the coaching staff losing the team a little. We were 6-10 in year one, but, we were competitive, tough hard-nosed. Last year we were 5-11, but we were atrocious, uncompetitive, undisciplined, poorly coached and all the rest usually common in such awful teams.

Still, no one has suggested there aren't legitimate issues to address. The suggestion here is replacing the judgement of people we all know to have a better handle on what type of players the team needs to improve, with our drunken, Fox review of a game, is an embarrassment to those who allow themselves to get caught doing it.

I've been able to survive on message boards for years and years, all the while voicing concerns, questions and worries, without ever once thinking I knew more about how to accomplish what the team was trying to accomplish. Not even when Lynn was here.

There's a clear transition in message board communities where people take their opinion far more seriously than their knowledge would suggest they should.

[Art]

Personally I have no problem with their later picks. But you bypassed my question about the first round pick. If they had rated Okoye as the BPA, would they still have taken Landry in your opinion? Is this what you're saying?

If Okoye was their BPA, they'd have taken him. If Peterson was, they'd have taken Landry . Next year, if a safety is their BPA, they will take someone else. Of course, the grades tend to have a bell curve toward need anyway.

[Art]

P.S. You cannot argue with the output/production (or lack there of) a player or positional unit puts on the field.

The numbers don't lie. Fewest sacks in the league. Worst Turnover ratio in NFL history. Worst of all, (though mostly due to injuries in all positions) a 5-11 record.

No, the numbers don't lie. And the answers behind how we came to those numbers don't lie either. Smoot, Macklin, Stoutmire, Landry, Dallas, Blades and Fletcher were the answers. That not only doesn't lie, but, it provides you all the answers necessary to understand everything else there is about the team.

[Beer is Food]

I hate to brag about my ignorance, but the one thing I know is that the coaches know more about football and the Redskins than I do. And, that’s why I’m so frustrated.

Not many people know the intricacies of line play, but the majority of the fan base can read an injury report and can tell when the Redskins defense can’t stop the run or pressure the passer. SO, If the coaches know more, why don’t they address the issue and stop making mistakes? .

Maybe I'm just an optimist but I think the coaches do recognize that we must improve the DL. I hope they already have a plan in place to trade for Jenkins, and that’s why they didn’t pick DL. If not, I think we're in for long season.

[dfbovey]

DFB,

Archuleta was a mistake in evaluation of a player, but not in fit. He was sought to provide very specific, very identifiable things. It was thought he would not need to provide other things because that would be covered elsewhere. He did not work out and that's too bad. But, the idea behind his addition was a good one because the staff knew it needed that type of player with what it was trying to accomplish. Archuleta had weaknesses that prevented his success, no doubt. So, the execution in getting what you needed was poor, but, rejecting the premise is ignorant on your part.

It's not ignorant on my part at all. You agree with the way this defense is being built and I don't. I'd rather the team build from the line backwards instead of reverse. Until they do we'll continue to run a flawed system where it's a good possiblity that our corners will have more sacks than our lineman. We'll live and die by the blitz where if they'd just address the freaking defensive line, it wouldn't have to be that way.

[phishisthegreatstuff]

this is the dumbest thread ever.

[DjTj]

It's not ignorant on my part at all. You agree with the way this defense is being built and I don't. I'd rather the team build from the line backwards instead of reverse. Until they do we'll continue to run a flawed system where it's a good possiblity that our corners will have more sacks than our lineman. We'll live and die by the blitz where if they'd just address the freaking defensive line, it wouldn't have to be that way.

I don't think we're purposefully trying to build this defense backwards. Remember when Williams first arrived we signed Griffin, Salave'a, and Daniels as free agents. We tried to improve the defensive line last year by signing Andre Carter and drafting Golston and Montgomery.

If you look at it in those terms, it makes more sense that a hard-hitting safety was more valuable to us than a defensive lineman at #6, because no matter what you think of Carter, Golston, and Montgomery, at least they're still here, while Archuleta is gone.