Oh No Dey Didn't (Suppose no OL/DL in the Draft?)

[Thinking Skins]

This depends entirely on what you mean by "on course". It was obvious from day one that regardless as to what Gibbs was doing, he was not building a foundation for success. He was importing free agents in '04 and '06 to address major holes that needed quick addressing in his view (a replacement for Gardener on the DL, a legit threat at LB, a legit stud corner, a legit in his view QB, quality 2nd and 3rd tier options at WR, and a center) w/older players who would not be long for the team, he was mortgaging future draft pick assets in trades for Boonell, then Cooley, then Campbell, then Rocky, Lloyd, Duckett etc for a combo of quick fixes, and hopeful assets that emptied the cupboard consistently of draft picks, this paid off once (Cooley), and failed to pay off every other time. He was building a quick fix, it was something I was against then and now, some Redskins fans just wanted a return to productivity, and playoffs, if you wanted a return to long term, lasting prominence, this wasn't a way to do it.

I guess we agree here. Gibbs brought us back to what he defined as "on course", which was veteran leadership and competing for the playoffs. He seemed to have an attitude of **** the future, we've got to win in the next 5 years. He did a good job of getting us two winning seasons in that time period. Under Steve Spurrier, I was thinking we'd be an 0-16 team with the way he was running things. Gibbs got rid of that mentality, and installed a winning attitude amonst the players. We can't ignore that.

Again, it depends upon how you view addressing the lines. The DL was stuffed w/elderly lineman, and nearly 30 year old lineman, a few day 2 flyers were thrown as well at the line, and a mid-tier edge rusher was signed. All moves were quick fixes, none of them were long term planning. Daniels, Griffin, Carter? Not long term fixes. As for the OL. No building whatsoever went on. We signed a nearly 30 year old center, and drafted a few busts on day 2, and brought in a quick fix jet after we lost Dock. None of this was legitamently addressing the lines in a fashion that would have any long term positive impact whatsoever, and its reflected in the fact that our pass rush continues to suck, as always, from the DL position, and our line blocking has progressively deteriotated since we've ignored it from '04-'07 on draft day.

It seems like people think we've been an 0-16 team for the past 17 years because we haven't won a championship in those years.

True, he didn't bring in young guys. But once again, this goes with the Gibbs philosophy of anti-rookies. He was drafting people to play special teams. Its a surprise we were able to find Cooley and the marginal players in Monty and Goldston. He really doesn't like rookies. Remember that he (or GW) kept Sean Taylor on the bench a few games and Rocky McIntosh on the bench most of his rookie season. But that doesn't mean we didn't address the D-Line. We added Griff, Wynn, Daniels, Carter, and others who were aging veterans and were able to contribute along our lines.

Building a team requires a mix of veterans and youth. We were able to get the veterans, but not the youth. And now if we can build a youth movement, we can improve this team.

What I'm saying is that Redskins fans act like we're the only team that has ever been dominated by veterans. It happens many times with many teams. And they find ways to get out of it. Sometiems it requires a step back. Sometimes they are able to keep on winning. Sometimes they improve by getting younger (as did the Giants with getting a new OL). For years the Patriots have been called an 'old' team and that hasn't stopped them from winning. But I digress.

Gibbs rebuilt through a blend, not free agency, but my indictment is of the redskins in the Cooke, and Snyder era's of '93-'08, and in Vinny's case an indictment of his moves in San Francisco as well. We simply havent built properly and this is why we've sucked and not built anything of consequence in the Snyder era, in the Cooke era, it was more about terrible scouting and decisionmaking rather than inept foundation strategies.

I agree here to an extent. Another problem with this area is that in building a team we need a bit of consistency. We have no identity and we can't keep going from a (pass and run mix) Norv to a (run heavy) Marty to a (pass happy) Spurrier to a (run happy) Gibbs to a (pass happy) Zorn. If we can just stick with something for a while, it will work wonders - maybe not in record initially, but at least in allowing the players to learn and master a system and develop in it. It wouldn't surprise me if Campbell was out there screaming some Gibbs signals in a Zorn offense. The dude needs time to learn his offense. I know its an excuse for JC, but its also an excuse for our entire offense. They all need time to learn it.

No it isn't. The entire OL is over as a competitive entity beyond Samuels and Raybach, and Thomas probably beyond '09. The DL is a joke. No answers at strong side DE, no answers at one other DT slot, the other is manned by two free agents, neither of which are no doubt about it starters, and our edge rusher is hitting 30, and even if he reaches his peak performance the fact that the lineman next to him suck, are old, or are merely adequate, and the LB's behind him are a joke makes that highly unlikely. At LB, we're young, injured and inadequate (Rocky), old (LFB), and over (Washington). The secondary is the only thing of any long term quality on this team. That is fine, 8-8 or better, the rest is a rotted staircase or roof, ready for collapse. As for the O. The line is entirely 30+ w/no definitive youthful answers ready to come in and start. The QB is at best a question mark, the running game is up there in age and in carries, the WR's are all question marks or getting old (Moss), and TE is fine.

This is a team w/o a future, and not much of a present. That's reality. You can believe 6-2, or 2-6, I believe the age, and the injury history, and when I look at the cap, and our collection of draft picks, freaking FOUR, and the man in charge and his strategy, I am at best, lacking in faith in any short term success for this team. That's reality.

Even if I give you what you just said, you're agreeing with me. THe OL minus Samuels and Rabach being bad = 3/5 of the OL being bad = we have an average OL.

But I disagree with that cause we can argue that our OL isn't as a whole bad its just that they can be dominant at times and piss poor at times. In a word our OL is 'inconsistent'. People weren't calling our OL piss poor when we were 6-2. People only started to call us that on the 2-6 downturn. Thats a result of the inconsistency, and what amounts to average play. I'd like to see less guarantees for starting spots along this OL and just some pure competition, where guys can lose their jobs. I don't like this loyalty.

Its funny that you call the DL a joke, but we have one of the best lines against the run in the league. Thats not a product of the secondary and the LBs. True Fletcher makes the tackles, but the fact that there is NO OL on him is a product of our DTs being able to stop the run and keep the OL off him. We have a good DL at stopping the run. We have a piss poor DL at rushing the pass. What that results in is an average DL.

We have a secondary thats great in coverage, but piss poor in making the play - result: an average secondary.

We have a lb core thats good in tackling, but does not dominate anything and can get abused in coverage, its just an average LB core.

How conveniant that you leave out NYG, Philly, New England, Baltimore (until they finished building their lines a few years ago, i suspect they will start drafting lineman again soon) and the like. The vast majority of the consistently competitive teams this decade have made it a habit of drafting for the lines, and then worrying about the rest. The poster above me addressed the erroneous reality of your Cleveland and Denver references.

I mentioned Cleveland and Denver because they've proven that just because you draft a lineman doesn't mean much. Cleveland had two big busts in Courtney Brown and Gerrard Warren. Denver has been an in-house for Linemen every offseason during Shanahan's tenure.

[Thinking Skins]

First of all, Cleveland is not known for a team that reaches for linemen. They took one linemen in rounds 1-3 in the past five drafts. The Broncos are also not known as a team that reaches for linemen. They've taken four linemen in the first three rounds of the past five drafts. Three were taken last season. In fact, the knock on the Broncos is that they neglect their defensive line. Until last year's draft where they took a DE in round one and two, they signed a bunch of unproven linemen and considered it "addressing the defensive line".

Sound familiar?

But you've got to look a bit behind the last 5 years and ask why they took that approach. If you look at Cleveland, you'll see that they had two big busts along the DL in consecutive drafts. Those drafts messed up their cap situation so they had a lot invested at that position. Maybe that had something to do with why they decided to go the cheaper route. But they did draft linemen early, and unfortunately it didn't help them.

As for Denver:

In 2001, Denver took 2 DL

In 2002, Denver took 1 DL

In 2003, Denver took 2 DL

In 2006, Denver took 1 DL

In 2007, Denver took 3 DL

Thats looking at rounds 1-4. And where is their team? They still need help along the Defensive line. I'd say that some of these players are reaches, or at least have a problem producing under their initial teams.

They also went the route more familiar to the Redskins by bringing in free agents to help address the line. And they still suck there. I think its a bit more than just how many players we draft along the lines.

Meanwhile, the Broncos have had one losing season in the past five seasons, two in the past ten, three in the past fifteen. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply by telling us to look at where their franchise is.

Like I said, go root for them if you want to root for a team that reaches for linemen root for one of them.

You can make an argument that their fans are "happier" than our fans, but they've won 0 super Bowls in that time. And if you really want to make that arguement, then why not go root for them?

Second of all, it doesn't matter if you're 0-16 or 8-8. Teams that can't even give itself a chance to make it to the playoffs are equal. Yes there are exceptions such as the 8-8 Chargers making the playoffs or the 11-5 Patriots missing the playoffs, but patting yourself on the back for not being a 0-16 team is just retarded. We made it to the playoffs twice in the past four years, but how many times have we made it in the past 17 (the number of years you referenced)?

There's a reason that the Broncos are looking to go in a new direction despite historically having a much better record and team than the Redskins. There's also a reason that the Buccaneers are looking to go in a new direction despite making the playoffs two out of the last four seasons.

Meanwhile, Redskins fans and the front office are supposed to be happy and content with what we've accomplished, using arguments that make no sense such as "we're not a 0-16 team" and "the Browns and Broncos reach for linemen". A true loser's mentality.

Some people want change just for the sake of change. I'm not one of those people. I happen to believe that one of the reasons teams become successful is that their coaches get time to grow. We haven't done that since Norv. And I think that Cooke (and his estate) was way too slow in firing Norv and that Snyder was way too fast in firing Marty. Spurrier resigned so we couldn't blame Snyder for that. But under Gibbs we were finally able to establish some consistency (at least at head coach).

Most coaches don't inherit a great team and most coaches don't make the playoffs their first year. The fact that Zorn didn't doesn't put him into some odd category.

Look at Gibbs's first year back: we started 3-5 and finished 3-5. Are people saying that thats a better year than Zorn's first year as a head coach because Zorn had a MUCH better start and finished one game worse IN HIS HEAD FIRST COACHING JOB?

I don't know if Zorn is the answer as a coach, but the thing is that none of us can tell the future, so none of us know either. All we can do is root for our team to do well, and thats all I'm gonna do.

[Shilsu]

But you've got to look a bit behind the last 5 years and ask why they took that approach. If you look at Cleveland, you'll see that they had two big busts along the DL in consecutive drafts. Those drafts messed up their cap situation so they had a lot invested at that position. Maybe that had something to do with why they decided to go the cheaper route. But they did draft linemen early, and unfortunately it didn't help them.

As for Denver:

In 2001, Denver took 2 DL

In 2002, Denver took 1 DL

In 2003, Denver took 2 DL

In 2006, Denver took 1 DL

In 2007, Denver took 3 DL

Thats looking at rounds 1-4. And where is their team? They still need help along the Defensive line. I'd say that some of these players are reaches, or at least have a problem producing under their initial teams.

They also went the route more familiar to the Redskins by bringing in free agents to help address the line. And they still suck there. I think its a bit more than just how many players we draft along the lines.

Like I said, go root for them if you want to root for a team that reaches for linemen root for one of them.

The only reaching that's going on is you claiming the Cleveland Browns historically reach for linemen because of what they did in 1999 and 2000, and then inflating your number of Denver linemen with fourth round picks.

And you said it with your post, "I think its a bit more than just how many players we draft along the lines." That's why I never want to hear you try to argue that we addressed our lines because we got Heyer, Geisinger, Crummey, Jackson, Montgomery, and Golston. That's not addressing your lines.

You can make an argument that their fans are "happier" than our fans, but they've won 0 super Bowls in that time. And if you really want to make that arguement, then why not go root for them?

There's a reason I told you that the Broncos, who have been more successful than the Redskins, and the Buccaneers, who have had almost carbon copy results, are both looking to go in a different direction.

Some people want change just for the sake of change. I'm not one of those people. I happen to believe that one of the reasons teams become successful is that their coaches get time to grow. We haven't done that since Norv. And I think that Cooke (and his estate) was way too slow in firing Norv and that Snyder was way too fast in firing Marty. Spurrier resigned so we couldn't blame Snyder for that. But under Gibbs we were finally able to establish some consistency (at least at head coach).

Most coaches don't inherit a great team and most coaches don't make the playoffs their first year. The fact that Zorn didn't doesn't put him into some odd category.

Look at Gibbs's first year back: we started 3-5 and finished 3-5. Are people saying that thats a better year than Zorn's first year as a head coach because Zorn had a MUCH better start and finished one game worse IN HIS HEAD FIRST COACHING JOB?

I don't know if Zorn is the answer as a coach, but the thing is that none of us can tell the future, so none of us know either. All we can do is root for our team to do well, and thats all I'm gonna do.

Feel free to root for the team. Don't make dumb arguments claiming we should be happy with mediocrity.

One parent cares when his child does something wrong.

One parent doesn't care when his child does something wrong and just talks about how adorable and cute the child is.

Guess which one fosters success.

[Reaganaut]

http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2009/02/16/washington-to-bring-a-qb-in-to-compete-w-starter-jason-campbell/

Washington to Bring a QB in to Compete w/ Starter Jason Campbell?

The Redskins had a hot start to 2009, but then fell on hard times and missed the playoffs. A player that had a hot start only to cool was QB Jason Campbell, who threw for 13 touchdowns and six picks in 16 games to go along with a QB rating of 84.3. Campbell threw for 3245 yards, 202.8 yards per game.

The team is thinking about going out and bringing in a QB to compete with Campbell, that according to a recent report in Pro Football Weekly:

Word is the Redskins are kicking the tires on some college quarterbacks perhaps a bit closer than they have in recent years. Jason Campbell’s job is not in jeopardy yet. But it’s possible that the Redskins will consider drafting a QB as someone who can put pressure on Campbell at some point down the road, perhaps in 2010.

One player that is already on the Skins roster is Colt Brennan, who was the teams 6th round pick last season out of Hawaii. Todd Collins is also on the roster, and don’t forget he played well two years ago and even played in the teams wild card playoff loss to the Seahawks. We’ll see if the team looks at any possible veteran QB’s in free agency.

[Chief skin]

With the incompetence this front office has shown over the years would not surpise me in the least

[scruffylookin]

There is only one type of player that we could draft that would make me tolerate for yet another year ignoring the lines. A pass rushing linebacker.

This defense needs to pressure the QB and cause turnovers. I'd prefer to be able to do this via the defensive line, hence my preference for drafting a stud pass rushing defensive end. However if instead we go for a stud pass rushing/havoc causing linebacker I'll be okay with it. That'll at least partially fill a gaping need on this defense.

[skinzwiz]

But the main point of my question is Suppose that instead of addressing the lines we got:

- a top tier QB who falls to us (like in 2005 when Aaron Rogders fell)

- a RB with the talent of an Adrian Peterson

- a WR who can take over a game like Larry Fitzgerald (with college experience and good knees)

- a TE (like Chris Cooley)

- an OLB like Lavar Aarington (fresh out of college)

- an ILB like Ray Lewis

- a safety like Ed Reed

- a CB like Deion Sanders

I'll take the Larry Fitzgerald, Ray Lewis, Lavar Arrington, Ed Reed, and Deon Sanders;)

[ECU-ALUM]

They don't draft some line help (doesn't matter which one they both are a mess)...I say let the rioting and mayhem begin.