WP-Skins should follow Falcons, Ravens & Miami

[Elessar78]

I think JLC is touching on a nice idea here about the Redskins' philosophy or lack thereof when it comes to personnel decisions. We have a big enough sample of years to confidently say that it doesn't work. Something doesn't work. We're always a day late and a dollar short with personnel decisions. We live paycheck to paycheck in a sense when it comes to our personnel. We lack foresight and are therefore always trying to solve last year's problems this year and we come in unprepared for the challenges that are presented this year.

It's no wonder why no head coach candidate wanted to take the job last year.

[HailSkinz1]

I read the entire article and you can't argue with the premise that we need to draft OL and DL, but the article did have some shortcomings as some have pointed out.

The most glaring problem is that he starts the article by saying that Zorn wants to have a perennial playoff contender and then suggests to look at the Falcons, Dolphins, and Ravens. Well, newsflash - the Falcons and Dolphins are hardly perennial playoff contenders. The Ravens? Okay, they get there every so often.

The second problem as others have noted, is that all three of those teams changed QBs. Furthermore, JLC credits Sean Taylor's passing as the impetus for our playoff run last year which is just ridiculous. The offensive production led by Todd Collins is what catapulted us into the playoffs last year.

But, we do need to pay less attention to players that sell jerseys and more attention to the positions that sell Super Bowl tickets.

Hail,

H

[TheLongshot]

Obviously, I agree with you, however; if you are going to quote me please read what I wrote. I don't know how else to say it any clearer, but I'll try to break it down Barnney style for you. The Redskins, Snyder and Cerrato, continually restructure the higher priced contracts in order to make room under the cap for the current year. Unfortunately, this only postpones the inevitable that sooner or later they are going to have to pay the piper and the cap hit is only getting worse every year.

Does that help? Do you understand what I am saying now, or do you need it Teletubbies style?

Well, people have been saying it postpones the inevitable for years, and yet we haven't seen the "inevitable" come. Why? Because the FO actually plans these things out. They generally know how long a player will probably stick around here, and for the most part, their estimates have been correct. Even this year we have a few veterans that we can walk away from with little pain and replace with either cheaper veterans or rookies.

The only time it becomes a sticky wicket is when they miss that estimate by a lot, either because a vet wanted out early (Coles) or that they totally wiffed on a signing (Arch, Lloyd). Even so, there seems to be some leeway in there where it doesn't hurt us all that much.

I'd say the cap is the least of our issues. I think the trades that have gone bad (Lloyd, Duckett) have hurt us far more than money given up to veterans.

[maskedsuperstar]

Spot on. They are examples of the product the NFL fields; they are just mere beneficiaries of new-era NFL parity.

Exactly. Blache and his archaic philosophies serve as the sole hindrances of our defense. He has mismanaged our d-line personnel and secondary personnel.

This would normally be seen as an undeniable reality, yet people seem to miss it, instead choosing more contrived arguments.

I disagree. This only magnified now, though, by the fact that Jason only exacerbates the issue. The offensive line, both in pass and run blocking has had issues since 2006.

In 2006, the OL gave up only 19 sacks. Portis got hurt but Betts still had over 1,000 yds rushing. This past season, the OL gave up 38 sacks. The OL got old fast. It wasn't an issue in 2006.

[TheLongshot]

The ravens defense is built better than our entire team if you really think about it. For the past decade they haven't had many down years or much fall off at multiple positions or many over-paid veterans who don't produce.

Actually, since stabilizing the coaching staff on the defensive side of the ball, we haven't had many down years on the defensive side of the ball either. Granted, their defense has been much better.

[maskedsuperstar]

I think JLC is touching on a nice idea here about the Redskins' philosophy or lack thereof when it comes to personnel decisions. We have a big enough sample of years to confidently say that it doesn't work. Something doesn't work. We're always a day late and a dollar short with personnel decisions. We live paycheck to paycheck in a sense when it comes to our personnel. We lack foresight and are therefore always trying to solve last year's problems this year and we come in unprepared for the challenges that are presented this year.

It's no wonder why no head coach candidate wanted to take the job last year.

So, no one wanted to get paid? When you have a chance to be an head coach, take it. Not buying it.

[Oldfan]

...."Dimitroff espouses a "need-specific" draft philosophy he learned in New England, one based on "system-specific scouting."

Do you happen to agree with what JLC has written here about NE and their draft strategy?

I think JLC is confusing two distinct ideas. Belichick wants players who fit his schemes. This is undoubtedly what Dimitrioff means by the term "system-specific." Example: A college end might suit the 3-4 but not our 4-3, so we'd pass on him even though he might well be the BPA for some other team.

Drafting for need implies emphasis on finding players at specific positions. It's not my impression that the Patriots do that.

The simple fact that JLC uses both terms in the same sentence without explanation causes me to think he doesn't understand the difference.

[armada58]

It's amazing how JLC rips the Redskins for not building via the draft. Then, in the same breath, he rips Cerrato for keeping all of his draft picks from last year on the roster. Then completely ignores the fact that Cerrato did exactly what he rips him for not doing last year (No big free agents, lots of draft picks, etc.). There will be no winning with JLC, plain and simple.

If Cerrato dumps every high priced veteran for draft picks then goes out and uses ALL of the picks on linemen, JLC will find a way to rip on the Front Office. It's just doesn't matter what they do.

[Warpath11]

I think JLC is confusing two distinct ideas. Belichick wants players who fit his schemes. This is undoubtedly what Dimitrioff means by the term "system-specific." Example: A college end might suit the 3-4 but not our 4-3, so we'd pass on him even though he might well be the BPA for some other team.

Drafting for need implies emphasis on finding players at specific positions. It's not my impression that the Patriots do that.

The simple fact that JLC uses both terms in the same sentence without explanation causes me to think he doesn't understand the difference.

Yeah that is what I thought as well but seems like our friend JLC has no idea about what he is writing, might as well throw the whole article in the can.

Having said that, I would argue that Atlanta did draft for need and violated one of the important things about building via the draft. Last year they traded UP to get Sam Baker, from your other posts regarding the draft this is a big no-no.

[Dance04]

Well, people have been saying it postpones the inevitable for years, and yet we haven't seen the "inevitable" come. Why? Because the FO actually plans these things out. They generally know how long a player will probably stick around here, and for the most part, their estimates have been correct. Even this year we have a few veterans that we can walk away from with little pain and replace with either cheaper veterans or rookies.

The only time it becomes a sticky wicket is when they miss that estimate by a lot, either because a vet wanted out early (Coles) or that they totally wiffed on a signing (Arch, Lloyd). Even so, there seems to be some leeway in there where it doesn't hurt us all that much.

I'd say the cap is the least of our issues. I think the trades that have gone bad (Lloyd, Duckett) have hurt us far more than money given up to veterans.

Your 100% right, we are always under the cap. But so many of our players have their contracts restructured in ways that make us committed to them for better or worse. We can't move any of our players if we wanted to.

Eventually that will catch up with us.

[maskedsuperstar]

Of course he was the bad guy. Only if you were CONVINCED that the Redskins were a DE (and a prototype RE that was redundant with Carter, I should add) away from being true Super Bowl contenders should that trade have been made. The Taylor trade was a bust waiting to happen, and it came home to roost in a big way. It honestly makes no difference to me what "90% of this board" thought, because in my experience, 90% of this board is wrong about a LOT of things.

I'm with you here, in terms of being surprised and dismayed at the reaction of many Redskins fans. At least with regard to the folks who, from April to January extol the virtues of hoarding draft picks and claim to hate free agency, but then catch the Redskins One bug late each February.

Personally, I wasn't that upset, but only because the FA market was pretty dry last year. If there had been more attractive players out there, I would have been clamoring for a move. I'll be clamoring for a Gross signing this year, if he beats the tag.

Gholston was converted to LB, so that makes that comparison a little spotty.

Not sure how you reach the conclusion that Albert never played, when he started 15 games. And Dorsey must be one of the best stories in NFL history, recovering from the brink of being cut to start every game and pile up more tackles than any DT on our roster...50% more, in fact.

I'm just not sure how you can conclude that they're heading in the right direction. They've got FOUR picks in the upcoming draft. One of which they sacrificed in a move that was eerily reminsicent of the 2000 grab of Bruce Smith, which you would have thought they'd have learned from (even though Bruce actually wasn't AS bad as 'Skins fans make him out to be). But instead of learning, they not only duplicated the move, they took it to the next level by moving Taylor to the other side! It was a move largely in keeping with Einstein's definition of insanity.

I'd love to believe the FO is moving in the right direction, and perhaps they are. But until I see actual moves that indicate a shift in philosophy, and not just soft talk, it's hard to buy a "change."

I definitely agree with the bolded portion, though.

Everyone was in love with the Taylor move. It didn't work out. Vinny gets the blame. Me? I would have given him a shot. Had it worked, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

The Chiefs were 30th against the run. Dorsey had 46 tackles, which were probably 6 yards down the field. Point is that he was getting blown off the ball. Bad technique. He didn't start every game. 1 sack also. The defense had 10!!!!!!!!!

Don't want Gross. He's 29 years old. So, what were you saying about old players?

Gholston didn't play. I don't care if the Jets were trying to convert him to LB. Top 10 pick, no impact.

10 players drafted is a start. Thats my point.

[Oldfan]

Turnover differential is directly correlated to line play. I think most would agree that protecting the QB and pressuring the opposing teams QB is probably the biggest factor in having a positive turnover ratio.

Wait, so the teams that JLC claimed to emphasize on drafting linemen had a positive turnover ratio?

Good observation there, Oldfan.

You are making a false assumption, namely that the quality of the players is the sole factor in the turnover ratio. An aggressive scheme on defense plays a large role also. Evidence: The Jags had 17 takeaways for Gregg Williams, 30 the year before he got there. His teams have never gotten turnovers going back to his days in Buffalo.

[maskedsuperstar]

I don't think they'll ever move in the right direction. Let's not forget that they almost gave up the farm (per this article) for Ocho Cinco and they tried to make a play for Boldin, too. That's not a shift in philosophy. That's steady as she goes on the Good Ship Insanity.

Gave up the farm? How close were the Skins actually going to sign Ocho Cinco? Boldin? I never heard that one. JLC makes up a lot of crap.

[Dance04]

Having said that, I would argue that Atlanta did draft for need and violated one of the important things about building via the draft. Last year they traded UP to get Sam Baker, from your other posts regarding the draft this is a big no-no.

OF is not the messiah of draft posts. Please.

There is nothing wrong with trading up for a player if you truly believe that he can be your guy and he won't fall to you at your next pick

Every year teams trade back into the first round.

[Oldfan]

Having said that, I would argue that Atlanta did draft for need and violated one of the important things about building via the draft. Last year they traded UP to get Sam Baker, from your other posts regarding the draft this is a big no-no.

Trading up is generally a bad idea. It depends on how far you have to reach. But Atlanta was expected to use this draft again for the O line. Instead they took Ryan, so using them as evidence of a team built from the trenches first is weak.

[maskedsuperstar]

ALL of the New York Giants' draft picks contributed to their Super Bowl run in 2007. The problem is, when you give away all of your draft picks for players who best days are behind them, it makes it even more vital for the team to have a good draft. When only one draft pick contributes significantly year-to-year (Chris Horton), it stands out more because there's very little depth as the team gets older.

The Giants had 8 picks. 2 of them had an impact. Aaron Ross, Ahmad Bradshaw. Nice try.

The Skins only gave up a 2nd and 6th for Taylor. When 2 DE's go down in the first day of training camp, what do you do? They gambled. Didn't work. Everyone loved the move at the time. How we forget!

[Oldfan]

The Giants had 8 picks. 2 of them had an impact. Aaron Ross, Ahmad Bradshaw. Nice try.

The Skins only gave up a 2nd and 6th for Taylor. When 2 DE's go down in the first day of training camp, what do you do? They gambled. Didn't work. Everyone loved the move at the time. How we forget!

I was one of a small group of posters opposed to that trade. I want a dynasty. Short-term needs and long-term goals don't mix.

In the long run, it might be a good thing that the trade failed miserably. Dan and Vinny aren't the brightest kids in the NFL, but they do learn from mistakes.

[shuler74]

Love him or hate him JLC is right, dont understand how there or why so many Vinny supporters, we are a laughing stock of the nfl right above the lions, no teams respects us and have a very very old team with very little draft pics and a high payroll and probably be in salary cap hell as long as Vinny is in charge

[Elessar78]

"If I was running things, I'd start getting rid of every veteran lineman I could and just draft linemen for a couple of years," a veteran player said. "Both sides of the ball, almost nothing but linemen. If we can't rush the passer or protect the passer, then we ain't going nowhere, and that's where we're at. I'd go with what we got at the skill spots, because you can't really move those guys anyway, and spend the next two years redoing the lines."

It's nice that us outsiders can theorize till we're blue in the face, but here it is from someone who's probably as close to the action as anyone, even if he is a third string backup punter. Players talk to each other and they know what's true and what isn't.

[e16bball]

Everyone was in love with the Taylor move.

But I wasn't, so how does that point make sense in a response to ME? I, along with a limited group of fans, was opposed to the trade.

It didn't work out. Vinny gets the blame. Me? I would have given him a shot. Had it worked, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

Had the Herschel Walker trade "worked out," we wouldn't be talking about it now. Had the XFL "worked out," we wouldn't be talking about it. Sadly, they failed. As did the Taylor trade. That justification can be given for any idea, no matter how bone-headed.

"I tried to fly, so I jumped off a building. It didn't work out, but honestly, if it HAD worked out, we wouldn't be talking about this now. At least not at my funeral."

The Chiefs were 30th against the run. Dorsey had 46 tackles, which were probably 6 yards down the field. Point is that he was getting blown off the ball. Bad technique. He didn't start every game. 1 sack also. The defense had 10!!!!!!!!!

What's your point? You said he was almost cut in training camp, which is obviously false. You said Albert never played, which is also obviously false. I made no statements as to HOW they played; I was solely casting aspersions on your flatly false comments on their playing time,

Don't want Gross. He's 29 years old. So, what were you saying about old players?

Elite offensive tackles aren't approaching the downslide at 29, barring serious injury. Sign Gross for 5-6 years, and you can be very comfortable with him performing at a high level for at least 4-5 of those years.

Gholston didn't play. I don't care if the Jets were trying to convert him to LB. Top 10 pick, no impact.

Your point was specifically with regard to DL, and presumably with regard to the implications for the Redskins. What relevance does a college DE getting converted to LB in a different scheme have for the Redskins?

10 players drafted is a start. Thats my point.

That's a good thing. I view it as such. My pleasure is strongly tempered by the fact that they'll be drafting FOUR players in the upcoming draft. Why isn't yours?

[TheLongshot]

You are making a false assumption, namely that the quality of the players are the sole factor in the turnover ratio. An aggressive scheme on defense plays a large role also. Evidence: The Jags had 17 takeaways for Gregg Williams, 30 the year before he got there. His teams have never gotten turnovers going back to his days in Buffalo.

Isn't Williams' scheme pretty aggressive, with exotic blitz schemes? It seems like a defense like that should get a lot of turnovers.

The Giants had 8 picks. 2 of them had an impact. Aaron Ross, Ahmad Bradshaw. Nice try.

Steve Smith missed most of the season, but he had a signifigant impact in the playoff run. Kevin Boss made Shockey expendable. Michael Johnson made some key starts in the run to the playoffs and is now a starter.

While the claim that "everyone" made an impact from that draft is somewhat of an exaggeration, they did get a lot of contributions from the draft, but that's mostly because of injuries that forced them onto the playing field. Would Boss have seen much playing time if it weren't for the fact that Shockey was lost for the season? Would Bradshaw if a lot of the backs ahead of him spent part of the early season hurt?

[Oldfan]

It's nice that us outsiders can theorize till we're blue in the face, but here it is from someone who's probably as close to the action as anyone, even if he is a third string backup punter. Players talk to each other and they know what's true and what isn't.

Players know how to run a franchise?

As a student of human nature, I'd bet that if you asked a O lineman his opinion, he'd say that you have to start building with the O line and a WR would tell you that you can't win without those big play makers at WR.

[Oldfan]

Isn't Williams' scheme pretty aggressive, with exotic blitz schemes? It seems like a defense like that should get a lot of turnovers.

You can't just count blitzes to determine if the scheme is aggressive. What type of blitz? When does he blitz? What other things are they doing to create turnovers?

In 2005, when we needed to win out, Gregg turned his troops loose and got sacks, turnovers, and short-field advantages for the offense. He never did it before or since.

Our defense has been geared to stop the teams with big play offenses. That's why we play the Eagles tough. We need to have a more flexible scheme, one more adaptible and able to take away the opponent's strength.

[BAFGA]

Gave up the farm? How close were the Skins actually going to sign Ocho Cinco? Boldin? I never heard that one. JLC makes up a lot of crap.

That wasn't JLC in that article. It was Mort. Oh, but he's garbage, too, huh?

[Mr. Grundle]

You are making a false assumption, namely that the quality of the players is the sole factor in the turnover ratio. An aggressive scheme on defense plays a large role also. Evidence: The Jags had 17 takeaways for Gregg Williams, 30 the year before he got there. His teams have never gotten turnovers going back to his days in Buffalo.

Where did I say "sole factor"? I said line play is probably the biggest factor, but not the sole factor. Do you disagree?

Jacksonville had other factors working against them, mainly on the lines.

Two new defensive linemen, including the loss of a Pro-Bowl DT in Marcus Stroud, and an incoming rookie DE.

Two new starting offensive linemen to go along with numerous injuries as well. Khalif Barnes gave up more sacks than any o-lineman in the NFL. David Garrard is sacked 42 times compared to 21 in 2007. He also throws 13 interceptions instead of 3. Is this because the offensive scheme changed?

It is about talent and depth more than scheme. Scheme does play a factor, but when it's 3rd and long, you're going after the QB no matter what the scheme. Our guys aren't good enough to get there.

Hypethetical......If Steve Spagnoula was our D-coordinator last season and Greg Blache was the Giants D-coordinator, which defense do you think causes more turnovers?