WP-Skins should follow Falcons, Ravens & Miami

[hitmandm]

Draft a QB that has a mental capacity higher than a piece of cheese and draft and OLT.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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.

It HAS caught up to us...anytime we have to discuss several underachievers per off-season that are "more expensive to cut than to keep" it's an example of our restructures biting us in the behind.

We can't cut players like Jansen because we've restructured them so many times. Even though we're not in Cap Hell with having all young, no-named players, we're trapped with the same core group of players whether or not they're successful.

[Stophovr6]

The problem with this article and a great deal of the Snyder/Vinny are dumb crowd is they are always and I mean always looking either sideways or backwards .

Look at so and so look at what X is doing or Y has done how dumb were we to pick up blah ...

Looking back on the trades .

Vinny? Is that you?

[Stophovr6]

It HAS caught up to us...anytime we have to discuss several underachievers per off-season that are "more expensive to cut than to keep" it's an example of our restructures biting us in the behind.

We can't cut players like Jansen because we've restructured them so many times. Even though we're not in Cap Hell with having all young, no-named players, we're trapped with the same core group of players whether or not they're successful.

True. I mean, we could probably get some decent picks for Portis right now, but trading him would cost us WAY too much. This isn't a good scenario, we're going to have to keep paying him past his prime.

[Dance04]

It HAS caught up to us...anytime we have to discuss several underachievers per off-season that are "more expensive to cut than to keep" it's an example of our restructures biting us in the behind.

We can't cut players like Jansen because we've restructured them so many times. Even though we're not in Cap Hell with having all young, no-named players, we're trapped with the same core group of players whether or not they're successful.

Exactly!! I don't understand how people can't grasp that.

BTW, David Patten was still a cap hit this year, lol.

[Dance04]

True. I mean, we could probably get some decent picks for Portis right now, but trading him would cost us WAY too much. This isn't a good scenario, we're going to have to keep paying him past his prime.

look at springs and rogers as an example.

Instead of getting rid of paperman springs, through trade or cutting can't be done. The cap hit is too large.

So instead, people want to trade one of our younger players who has value.

You trade older players for picks, not younger people who still have many years left in them

[Mr. Grundle]

True. I mean, we could probably get some decent picks for Portis right now, but trading him would cost us WAY too much. This isn't a good scenario, we're going to have to keep paying him past his prime.

This is going to be a big issue, probably starting next offseason. The cost of Portis will be the #1 controversy and complaint from fans.

[Oldfan]

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

Sorry, I misread your sentence on my first reply.

On both sides of the ball, I rate scheme at about a 40-50 percent factor. Most Football Minds are quick to point out that an offense that doesn't turn the ball over and can maintain ball control is a huge advantage. So, I really don't understand why those same experts don't criticize a bend-but-don't break defense that allows the opponent's offense to control the football and doesn't aggressively try to create turnovers.

Williams and Blache only get aggressive when the opponent reaches the red zone. That's their history. I don't believe that the Jags had 13 fewer takeaways because of personnel problems. I watched Gregg's defenses for four years.

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?

The Giants have better personnel, so they might still get more TOs -- but our defense would have more TOs coached by Spags than by Greg. I'm sure of it.

In his most recent presser, Jim Zorn told us that he plans for a more aggressive defense next season, one that will create more sacks which lead to more turnovers.

[e16bball]

look at springs and rogers as an example.

Instead of getting rid of paperman springs, through trade or cutting can't be done. The cap hit is too large.

So instead, people want to trade one of our younger players who has value.

You trade older players for picks, not younger people who still have many years left in them

Kind of a bad example.

Cutting or trading Springs would be to the huge benefit of our cap situation. We would save a solid $6M+ by trading him.

I don't understand the Rogers talk, personally. I know that he's upset, but even that puzzles me. Why isn't someone sitting down with him, telling him that he and DHall are the future?

Springs should be gone 100 times before Rogers.

[Skinsinparadise]

JLC made a very weak argument. He selected three teams that had turnaround years and manufactured a case for his pet theory about building the lines first.

That's a good point. If you look at the Dolphins statistically,on offense it was the Chad Pennington show. Ted Ginn was OK for exmple but he had just 50 and change catches, Fasano as a TE is decent but no Cooley. And I live in South Florida, and the papers are always moaning about the O line. The O supporting cast for the Dolphins didn't change much, the big change was QB.

Balitmore has been lacking a good QB, finally found a decent one in Flacco. And Ryan has been a stud as a rookie QB.

While I agree that the lines are critical, JLC IMO ignored a common thread between all of these teams, QB play.

[Stophovr6]

You trade older players for picks, not younger people who still have many years left in them

The only idiots that give up decent draft picks for old players are us and the Cowboys.

You trade players who you know have hit their prime and will start to decline. Waiting for them and their cap to lessen to trade them doesn't net you any good picks unless we somehow find a way to trade with our dumb ass selves.

[Dance04]

Kind of a bad example.

Cutting or trading Springs would be to the huge benefit of our cap situation. We would save a solid $6M+ by trading him.

I don't understand the Rogers talk, personally. I know that he's upset, but even that puzzles me. Why isn't someone sitting down with him, telling him that he and DHall are the future?

Springs should be gone 100 times before Rogers.

My mistake. I must have misread his cap figures.

If that's the case, then there is no question that he should be cut instead of getting rid of C-los.

And I totally agree about D hall and C Rogers

[Oldfan]

While I agree that the lines are critical, JLC IMO ignored a common thread between all of these teams, QB play.

Yeah. Somehow JLC overlooked QB changes, coaching changes, offensive and defensive scheme changes to discover support for his theory in three one-year turnarounds.

[Popeman38]

JLC is an idiot. He posts and article about Baltimore claiming they are built through the lines. Simply not true. Baltimore is built on its defense, plain and simple. Baltimore won 11 games this year because their offense averaged 4 more possessions per game. Why? Turnovers. Who causes turnovers for Baltimore? The LBs, Suggs, Lewis and Scott mostly, and the Safeties. Anyone analyzing Baltimore that doesn't attribute 80% of their success to Def is kidding themselves. The won a SB in 2000 despite not scoring an offensive TD for 6 games. Flacco w/out that defense wins 5 games this year.

[redbob]

The problem i have with the Taylor trade is why not wait a few days or maybe a week in the hope that the asking price comes down. When vinny calls tuna the same day or next day daniels goes down then parcells knows he has the upper hand. If we had waited , I'm positve tuna would have taken something less than the 2nd rounder b/c he didn't want taylor on his team. And if he went to another team, big deal, the guy is 34, and we keep our picks.

[TheLongshot]

The problem i have with the Taylor trade is why not wait a few days or maybe a week in the hope that the asking price comes down. When vinny calls tuna the same day or next day daniels goes down then parcells knows he has the upper hand. If we had waited , I'm positve tuna would have taken something less than the 2nd rounder b/c he didn't want taylor on his team. And if he went to another team, big deal, the guy is 34, and we keep our picks.

There was a strong rumor at the time that he would have been rolled into that Shockey trade, with the picks instead going to Miami and Taylor going to NY. In any case, I think a deal would have gotten done with someone that week, and probably for not much less than what he was asking for.

[pjfootballer]

I think the Taylor trade was the right thing to do at that point. I was at the Carolina game when he got hurt in the preseason and he was down on the ground so long, I thought he was gone for the year. He was never 100% after his knee buckled and his calf was kicked. I think it was amazing he played in the number of games he did. If they can get him to restructure to cut his cap hit in half, he will have a monster year in 2009 as long as he stays away from the injuries which was VERY fluke for him. Maybe it was just our bad luck.

[nneece]

JLC was wearing his Todd Heap jersey when he wrote this.

And just one quick note... We DID follow the Falcons, Ravens, and Miami by getting a new coach and changing our game plans drastically. (We just got pushed around and out-coached during the second half of the year.)

All three of these teams had new QBs... but article discusses the need to draft more lineman if you want to win games. Don't tell that to the Falcons or Ravens though. They both only drafted one lineman a PIECE last season.

We did not follow the Falcons or Miami- we did not get a new GM (as in the Falcons case) or football czar Bill Parcels (in Miami's case).

Apparently the Falcons and Ravens line must be in much better shape then the Redskins if they were able to only draft 1 lineman each.

[Vicious]

Protecting the QB only became an issue this past season. Where have you been? In fact, the Skins had one of the best OL, until last year. It caught up with them.

Actually it caught up with them the year before when their old asses could not stay in the game, we had a bunch of 2nd stringers in there and they could not even protect Todd Collins and his speedy release against the Seahawks.

[redman]

LMAO @ the homers in this thread who can't recognize an accurate opinion piece when they see one. The analysis is dead on. This isn't about one year or one draft - it's about years of following an idiotic and impulsive personnel policy and building a team backwards, from the outside in to the lines rather than the other way around.

I'm willing to give Vinny the benefit of the doubt for one more year, understanding that our needs were many last year and that he couldn't address all of them. But this is pretty much a make or break year for getting this team's personnel policy turned around.

[Stormy]

There was a strong rumor at the time that he would have been rolled into that Shockey trade, with the picks instead going to Miami and Taylor going to NY. In any case, I think a deal would have gotten done with someone that week, and probably for not much less than what he was asking for.

If all that stood between us and desperation for a DE was the oft-injured Daniels, why didn't we draft Merling with our first, or even Campbell with one of our three 2nd rounders? We'd have our DE of the future, and still have our #2 this year. Instead we have neither, and twice as many holes to fill. There is no excuse for a front office which passes up numerous starting OL/DL candidates in the draft, then has to trade a future #2 to land a semi-retired DE who doesn't even mildly fit our scheme.

[Pounds]

The problem i have with the Taylor trade is why not wait a few days or maybe a week in the hope that the asking price comes down. When vinny calls tuna the same day or next day daniels goes down then parcells knows he has the upper hand. If we had waited , I'm positve tuna would have taken something less than the 2nd rounder b/c he didn't want taylor on his team. And if he went to another team, big deal, the guy is 34, and we keep our picks.

My issue with the Taylor trade is that it smacks of a disconnect between the front office and Greg Blache. Why would we make a move for someone only to shackle him in a scheme that isn't befitting of his talents and in the process give up two draft picks?

Vinny may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he ain't that stupid. He knew who he was trading for.

[Oldfan]

....This isn't about one year or one draft - it's about years of following an idiotic and impulsive personnel policy and building a team backwards, from the outside in to the lines rather than the other way around.

JLC confuses me.

He points to both the Dolphins and the Falcons as teams who did it right. So, how were the Dolphins right for taking a lineman instead of a franchise QB (Ryan) and the Falcons were also right for taking a franchise QB when they still have O line holes to fill. Which way would you have done it?

Then he points to the Cardinals as doing it right because they used 40% of their draft picks for linemen in winning 52 games from 2000-2008 while the Redskins were wrong for spending only 25% of their picks in winning 64 games over the same period.

[redman]

JLC confuses me.

He points to both the Dolphins and the Falcons as teams who did it right. So, how were the Dolphins right for taking a lineman instead of a franchise QB (Ryan) and the Falcons were also right for taking a franchise QB when they still have O line holes to fill. Which way would you have done it?

Then he points to the Cardinals as doing it right because they used 40% of their draft picks for linemen in winning 52 games from 2000-2008 while the Redskins were wrong for spending only 25% of their picks in winning 64 games over the same period.

Falcons - "it's not about one draft . . .", and they also took Justice in the first round with their second pick. We've not drafted a first round OL since Samuels, and we haven't drafted one in the top three rounds since Dockery.

Cardinals - they weren't one of the primary comparisons of the article, but I certainly like where they are right now a hell of a lot more than where we are, don't you?

[Shilsu]

If we all that stood between us and desperation for a DE was the oft-injured Daniels, why didn't we draft Merling with our first, or even Campbell with one of our three 2nd rounders? We'd have our DE of the future, and still have our #2 this year. Instead we have neither, and twice as many holes to fill. There is no excuse for a front office which passes up numerous starting OL/DL candidates in the draft, then has to trade a future #2 to land a semi-retired DE who doesn't even mildly fit our scheme.

Because we wouldn't have traded for Jason Taylor if Alex Buzbee hadn't been injured also.

Meanwhile, should we have had Phillip Merling or Calais Campbell on our roster, there's still a chance we probably would have traded for Jason Taylor anyway.

...

Let me know if that explanation makes sense to you. Because it doesn't to me.