Personnel Philosophy, or, "Hey, Let's Copy the Lions and Cardinals!"

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Well you got it all figured out. :applause:

[ttr77]

Hey...there are 2 ways to grab true offseason headlines.

1. A long playoff run

2. Coach/player turnover.

The Redskins have cornered the market on one of 'em. Might as well dance with the one that brought ya.

[Nafniksder]

Great post Bounce, but it seems like some people still don't get it and never will. People are still talking about getting Chad Johnson, which would be a bad move in my opinion. We have more pressing needs like DE, LG, and RT but folks are talking this nonsense of trading Ladell Betts and draft picks for C.Johnson. I glazed over some of the threads calling for recievers and its justs hard read all the way through them because I just don't understand some people's logic. HTTR

[skinpride1]

Price tag is just to heavy for chad!

Draft someone please!!!!!

[ldsdbomber]

finally, more people are beginning to understand there is a difference between "getting under the cap, perhaps including signing a big name or two" and "maximising the efficiency of your cap use to make the best team over a long period of time for a sustained push at playoff success".

It makes me laugh AND cry when every year, someone posts a "cap hell" article and everyone jumps in laughing and joking that they are idiots and how smart we are as we "sort it out" every year. We do not sort it out, we just get by within the system but in no way IN NO WAY are we using our cap space efficiently and until there is a serious change in policy on this and other personnel issues, we're going nowhere

and all the rose coloured glasses brigade who will leap in and deride my post, I point you to the record of the Skins since 1992, or even just in the Snyder era. We are among the worst teams in the NFL, and have been for a long time. That's not possible in an equal salary cap situation unless there are fundamental and very real issues that are not being resolved.

[gardner47]

great post

[PlayAction]

Does anyone think that the Bengals would trade away Chad Johnson for a 4th round pick given his past production? Only the Patriots get those deals. Danny is a little more free with the draft picks. The Bengals also would take an 8million cap hit so they'll only trade him if given a lot in return. Basically, you can expect that the cost for Chad Johnson would be the draft pick used to select DE Calais Campbell or a top CB, PLUS the interior OG that we desperately need. Say a first and third round pick for arguments sake.

In addition, the Skins would throw a huge contract at CJ with a bonus spread past his retirement age. You have to plan on future dead money given his age. If Skins really need a high talent WR I would rather they use a first or second round pick on one. Then the other saved picks could still be used on DE, CB or OG.

[ttr77]

finally, more people are beginning to understand there is a difference between "getting under the cap, perhaps including signing a big name or two" and "maximising the efficiency of your cap use to make the best team over a long period of time for a sustained push at playoff success".

It makes me laugh AND cry when every year, someone posts a "cap hell" article and everyone jumps in laughing and joking that they are idiots and how smart we are as we "sort it out" every year. We do not sort it out, we just get by within the system but in no way IN NO WAY are we using our cap space efficiently and until there is a serious change in policy on this and other personnel issues, we're going nowhere

and all the rose coloured glasses brigade who will leap in and deride my post, I point you to the record of the Skins since 1992, or even just in the Snyder era. We are among the worst teams in the NFL, and have been for a long time. That's not possible in an equal salary cap situation unless there are fundamental and very real issues that are not being resolved.

Thanks for typing what I was too lazy, or stupid, to type myself. :notworthy

[Shilsu]

Your list left off one team - New England Cheats. How many top FA wideouts did they sign to make the super bowl?

Randy Moss (and Welker/Stallworth) were supposed to be the "final pieces". You forget that the Patriots were 12-4 last year with Caldwell as their #1 receiver.

[mw11385]

I'll drink to that...

[Peregrine]

Excellent post. Its not that these WR we can pick up wont produce, they may very well produce a lot. But it will cripple other areas of our team that actually NEED an infusion of talent, rather than areas that can do without.

Bad teams stock up on WR's because they see them as their only hope. Good teams build a team. Now obviously the first team that comes to mind trying to counter the OP argument is New England. However, there is a major flaw with that. New England was a superbowl team far before they had any WR talent. They kept changing up their WR core every year. The only reason they loaded up this season(the one year they LOST the superbowl) is because it was their one weakness. It was a glaring weakness they had NO money put into, and they were so loaded elsewhere, they could afford it.

The majority of successful teams in the NFL are not loading up on WR's. The top 4 teams in the NFC are the Cowboys, Giants, Packers, and Seahawks. Each has one top receiver. The other two playoff teams, us and the Bucs, are also not loaded at WR. In the AFC, the top 4 are the Pats, Colts, Chargers, and Jaguars. The Pats are loaded for the reasons mentioned above, but the Chargers and Jaguars certainly are not, and the Colts only had one top receiver all year. In fact, most times they only had 3 on gameday, and 2 of them young and inexperienced. The other three 10-6 teams in the AFC? The Steelers, Browns, and Titans, all with one top receiver at most.

The successful teams in the NFL dont load up at the WR position. Why should we?

[mw11385]

More splash = More hype = Redskins are the kings of the offseason.

Draft picks (IF they can be chosen properly... and the team has done pretty

well in the higher rounds lately) = More stability = Better football sense.

We are more than just "one big-play WR" away....

What would we like to see, and what do we expect our "brain trust" to do?

From where I sit, it's not the same thing, unfortunately.

[ThePreciating]

Thank you, a smart fan. Great post. Some people just never learn from history.

A few players we traded for or acquired through free agency:

Santana Moss

John Riggins

Sonny Jurgenson

Doug Williams

Clinton Portis

Joe Theismann

Earnest Byner

Mark Moseley

I learn from history, buddy. Stop believing the media mouth-offs.

I am disgusted at how everybody here thinks the media knows how to run football teams better than the teams themselves do.

FREE AGENCY and TRADES are VALID WAYS TO IMPROVE YOUR TEAM.

Just ask Riggo.

[ThePreciating]

The successful teams in the NFL dont load up at the WR position. Why should we?

Ugh, you make me feel SICK.

Best seasons:

Patriots - Moss, Welker, Stallworth (one of best WR trios in history)

Giants - Plax, Toomer

Colts - Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne

Cowboys - Terrell Owens (enough said.....Terry Glenn could count too tho)

Two Exceptions:

Lions - Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson (still this team was MUCH improved)

Cardinals - Fitzgerald and Boldin (this team ALSO much improved)

Teams who couldn't finish despite talent everywhere but at WR:

San Diego (Chambers by himself is not a big name)

Minnesota

Green Bay

Washington

Tampa Bay (sorry Galloway is too old to be a big name by himself)

So yeah sorry but successful teams DO have big name Wide Receivers. Welcome to real world.

[MikeBass]

Mark my words, if we trade for Johnson, many of the fans who are saying they want him now, will be ripping the FO apart for getting him in the end.

I think it is more like if we start building from the draft and losing for the next five years while getting rookies necessary experience we will be on here crying about how terrible a team that we have instead of being patient enough to get everything in place.

Heck we complain when we win, I know that if we take a step back and rebuild that it would be total chaos on these Redskin boards.

Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it.

[Forever21]

Plaxico Burress was a big name free agent WR for the Giants. He seemed to make a big difference for them. Maybe the Packers have won the Superbowl instead of the Giants if they would have gotten Randy Moss like Farve wanted. Dallas was pretty good with TO, another big-name trouble-making FA WR.

Are we that much worse than the Giants and Cowboys? I think not.

I think your list of poor teams starts with their QB issues rather than the abundance of WR talent and money spent. Bengals excluded, their big issue is defense.

I hope they just draft a WR with a second day pick and wait until after the draft to see what FA WRs are available. If all else fails, including A. Mix, trade for someone then if possible or just play the season out. We may already have the WR corps we need, with the new offense.

That's what I'm saying. We don't have a number 1 one receiver and some people mayb don't realize that because they think that Moss is a number 1.

I don't want us to give away a 1 or 2 draft pick but I would have no problem with us making a move for Williams/Fitzgerald/Johnson. That being said I'm not convinced any of them are actually available so all of this arguing is for not. A big time WR can make big differences but we don't have that guy.

[Jacoby6644]

I'm a build through the draft guy, but not opposed to free agency pick ups. It is a tool at the team's disposal that is just as important as the draft and has upside that the draft doesn't i.e. getting a know commodity vs. a college player with no experience at the next level.

However, you need to use free agency to get impact players that fit your team, not names that have either had past success or can only put butts in the seats do to their rep or the hype they bring with them. If the players don't fit your scheme or locker room chemistry, you shouldn't bring them in. All these players do is become a distraction/cancer to the team. The added player needs to make sense for the team and the compensation and or trade offers need to match the value. One thing that DS tends to do is overpay for what he is getting, which ends up costing the team in the long run (cap space, unsettled locker room, etc...)

If you going top be successful, you need to use all the tools at your disposal, but not abuse them.... If that makes any sense...

[USNationalist]

I think Bounce summed up my thoughts with his initial post pretty well.

[[[ghost]]]

You forgot to add New England to that list of Teams who signed succesful WRs, including a Huge Name such as Moss.

The Cards, Lions, and Bengals drafted their WRs, and they succeeded, yes.

You note that those teams are prennial losers, but you fail to note that they drafted pretty poorly all around. The Lions drafted two Busts for WRs. The Bengals kept drafting shady characters and injury-prone players, which is why their defense is in shambles.

Then you look at teams who are at worst consistantly competative, and look what they accomplished with their WR aquisitions. The Colts, Cowboys, Patiots, and Giants all drafted/signed/traded for WRs who played integral parts in their way to success.

So its clear that WR aquisitions through the Draft, FA, or Trades are actually quite successful, its just prudent to make sure the rest of your draft picks and FA pickups pay off.

[Bounce]

]']You forgot to add New England to that list of Teams who signed succesful WRs' date=' including a Huge Name such as Moss.[/quote']

:doh:

Seriously? After my whole argument about efficient investment and where a team builds and such, your go-to is the team that won three Super Bowls before going after a big-time WR only when they could get him for pennies on the dollar - and then didn't even another Super Bowl with him? Really? Did you even read the first post, or did you just see the thread title and think, "F*$# HIM! ME WANT CHAD!"