fansince62 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Jason La Canafora in his Post article of 1/21/09 tried to make an argument that the Redskins failure to make the playoffs in 2008 is due to their failure to take linemen in past drafts. He supplied some stats from the draft years 2000-2008 to support his case.JLC did not supply the number of wins each of those teams recorded over that span, so I checked and got some interesting results. The Redskins won more games than the Cardinals and Dolphins over that span even though those two teams drafted a much higher percentage of linemen. The Colts and Patriots won far more games than the Cards and Phins while also drafting a much lower percentage of linemen. Team, wins, percentage of drafted linemen (2000 - 2008): Patriots - 101 - 28.6 Colts - 101 - 29.7 Skins - 64 - 24.6 Dolphins - 62 - 40.0 Cardinals - 52 - 41.5 you're right...the pats were completely mistaken in focusing on d linemen earlier on when the empire was built AND GETTING THE RIGHT GUYS - they didn't have to draft as many linemen over the long haul......but like many teams you scrupulously avoid - say the Gints and Iggles (the teams that regualrly surpass the Skins when the final tally is assessed) - they make the lines the priority. raw numbers mean nothing to me either...I'l give you that. philosophy and priorities matter most. competence to find the right talent comes in a close second. and in this respect...this team has FAILED for the last 16 years. we've had, at times, above average lines. never Championship quality lines. covering up for incompetence in building a team is never a pretty thing. if you're going to hop on the molest JLC cuz he doesn't homer everything like Larry Michael bandwagon...at least take it to a deeper depth. besides...the Skins haven't...very obviously...drafted top talent D-linemen.....and have a broken reconrd on the O line. fellas...the OP is...regrettably...bogus and intended to promote discussion to keep things busy. draft percentages mean nothing - as I stated it is the philosophy that motivates the behavoir leading to the stats. and in this regard...well......we are still laughing at our FO...are we not? say Old...are you on retainer by the FO? cmon now...fess up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laron Burgundy Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Drafting linemen is a good idea. Pretending like arizona's and miami's one year of success suddenly makes them the bee's knees of franchise building is a bad idea. JLC is dumb, plain and simple. Anyone who tries to claim this year's one year wonder has the best front office in the league is stupid. I'd rather look at teams like the colts/patriots/chargers/steelers. Teams who always have success year after year. The problem with us is we're not a BAD team. We're not great but we're not bad either. Is there anyone else in the entire league who wants to blow it up and start all over after an 8-8 season? When you're 1-15 or 4-12 like the dolphins or falcons, and your team is dysfunctional, yeah, feel free to start from scratch. Probably the best thing that could happen for us is to really suck for a year or two. Then we would be forced to rebuild. But as an 8-8 team who went 3-3 in the toughest division in football, yeah, we're only a few pieces from having a playoff team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 It is because we need them badly.The Pats and Colts didn't. The Patriots and Colts didn't build by drafting a high percentage of linemen. that's what the stats show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I don't know how you reached that conclusion.The stats cover 2000 to 2008, a nine year period. The Patriots won five games in 2000, Belichicks first year. I concluded that most teams value the lines because the 4 non-Redskin teams you provided (New England, Indianapolis, Arizona, and Miami) either found themselves a stellar OL/DL or were still actively trying to do so through the draft. So, my point was that the teams that assembled a good OL or DL could afford to scale back their drafting in those positions and focus on others. I'm not sure what your point is about 2000...the Patriots have had a very good OL and DL since the 2001 season, so for the majority of your sample size, they've been in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The Patriots and Colts didn't build by drafting a high percentage of linemen. that's what the stats show. You still fail to address the assertion that, once those lines are built and have a solid foundation, several picks per draft are no longer necessary. If you gave the Redskins 5 solid OL and 4 solid DL under 27 years of age, then very few people here would think we needed 2-4 draft picks at those positions each year. We'd probably be happy with 1 OL and 1 DL pick to make sure we don't get old all at once. However, we have a bunch of aging or average players at all 9 of those positions, so the influx of talent and youth is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I don't know how you reached that conclusion. cuz they think searching for a franchise QB for 16 years at some point falls under the law of dimishing returns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How up shoring up the line with free agents??? I think its a matter of addressing the line, not just by drafting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 cuz they think searching for a franchise QB for 16 years at some point falls under the law of dimishing returns? Exactly. Even though the two "great" franchises that OF used also contain a franchise QB in the equation, I think it's obvious from NFL history that you can be a good team with almost anyone taking the snaps if you 1) protect him and 2) put pressure on the other QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 How up shoring up the line with free agents??? I think its a matter of addressing the line, not just by drafting them. That can work, at times. The problem is, in FA you get the least value because you're paying a premium. No one can argue that the best approach is to draft very good players each and every year. Granted, that's impossible even for the best front offices, but the closer you can get to that, the easier it is to add FA to put you over the top. You have more flexibility if you're paying 5 draft choices the same as 1 FA would cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitStickTaylor21 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 JLC really twisted some wording to fit his argument in that article. He said the Ravens had taken 13 offensive or defensive linemen in the draft since 2000. The Redskins have taken only 4 INTERIOR linemen in the draft during that time period. He needs to stop writing like a tabloid sports reporter. I looked this up last year when I thought we needed to draft an offensive lineman to start over Jansen. The Skins do best when we draft an offensive lineman in the first 3 rounds, outside of that, we don't really find anyone who pans out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 you're right...the pats were completely mistaken in focusing on d linemen earlier on when the empire was built ... I've heard this claim before. I've never seen evidence of its validity. Moreover, I doubt it -- because the draft isn't a supermarket. You don't just decide to build your lines first and voila! ...the great players appear on the draft board to fill your needs. ellas...the OP is...regrettably...bogus and intended to promote discussion to keep things busy. draft percentages mean nothing Well, maybe you don't think draft percentages mean anything, but those arguing that you build from the trenches obviously do. We have two threads on the first page using the skins low draft percentage in supporting that arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well, I'm glad you refuted JLC and his abysmal reporting. But that isn't enough to convince me that this team doesn't need to draft OL a plenty this draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinklein Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Uh, to answer your question quite bluntly, **** yes we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I concluded that most teams value the lines because the 4 non-Redskin teams you provided (New England, Indianapolis, Arizona, and Miami) either found themselves a stellar OL/DL or were still actively trying to do so through the draft. Your conclusion is based on a highly unlikely premise. The Patriots and Colts front offices BOTH have to be better at drafting linemen than they are at other positions in order to be satisfied with their lines and not satisfied elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 If so, then you better help Vinny grade these OL so that he can draft guys that can anchor our line for 10 years...that's how Indy and NE have been successful. I think the Patriots aging D line still excels, but their O line and the both the Colts lines aren't that much better than ours was from 2000 - 2006. Their schemes and their skill players have been much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Cards may have only 52 wins since 2000...but in case you missed it, they are the NFC superbowl representative this year. We've got 12 more wins than they do, and have made it out of the wild card round exactly once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 The successful teams dont draft linemen because they HAVE good linemen. The bad teams keep drafting duds. Are you going to argue that the Dolphins and Cardinals have had better lines than the Patriots and Colts over that same time period? That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 How up shoring up the line with free agents??? I think its a matter of addressing the line, not just by drafting them. If they're out there, and the free agency market doesn't get out of line, I think this is a very likely scenario for the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 anyone who is trying to claim we arent stupid in our drafting is just being a homer or playing devils advocates. we dont use the draft, and we wallow in mediocrity, simple as that. you can laugh at the dolphins or cardinals, both look to have brighter futures than the skins do currently. we have ignored both of the lines, and while we were able to get away with it for awhile, age is catching up with us. we still have no pass rush and havent for years, and no matter what our D is ranked, it keeps us from being elite. frankly this team needs to be blown up and all these old vets need to go, id be completely content with having this team go 6-10 for a few years if we got to see some great young kids progress and look like were going in the right direction. currently, we'll always go 7-9 or 9-7 and flirt with good, only to really be mediocre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 My feel for it is that the problem has been that we haven't been holding onto our picks -- moreso than poor draft selections. Even the best pickers that have ever been only find 1 out of 2 who will be around for more than 3 years. I agree, evidence shows that finding talent via the draft is as much a numbers game as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 The successful teams dont draft linemen because they HAVE good linemen. The bad teams keep drafting duds. Are you going to argue that the Dolphins and Cardinals have had better lines than the Patriots and Colts over that same time period? That's the point. That theory doesn't float. As I said before... The conclusion you suggest is based on a highly unlikely premise. The Patriots and Colts front offices BOTH have to be better at drafting linemen than they are at other positions in order to be satisfied with their lines and not satisfied elsewhere (If they draft linemen at a lower percentage, they obviously draft other positions at a higher percentage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 Cards may have only 52 wins since 2000...but in case you missed it, they are the NFC superbowl representative this year. We've got 12 more wins than they do, and have made it out of the wild card round exactly once. Don't you wish we played in their division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Jason La Canafora in his Post article of 1/21/09 tried to make an argument that the Redskins failure to make the playoffs in 2008 is due to their failure to take linemen in past drafts. He supplied some stats from the draft years 2000-2008 to support his case.JLC did not supply the number of wins each of those teams recorded over that span, so I checked and got some interesting results. The Redskins won more games than the Cardinals and Dolphins over that span even though those two teams drafted a much higher percentage of linemen. The Colts and Patriots won far more games than the Cards and Phins while also drafting a much lower percentage of linemen. Team, wins, percentage of drafted linemen (2000 - 2008): Patriots - 101 - 28.6 Colts - 101 - 29.7 Skins - 64 - 24.6 Dolphins - 62 - 40.0 Cardinals - 52 - 41.5 As usual your "stats" do not tell the actual story or have any relevance. Cards drafted or picked up as a UDFA 4 of their 5 O-lineman. Steelers drafted 4 of the 5 starting O-lineman and none of the draftees have more than 5 years experience. New England's starting lineman are all draftees and all except Matt Light have 5 years or less experience. You need to constantly be drafting new lineman every year for depth and replenishment of lost FA's, as we all know lineman since Hutchinson's move to Minnesota have been in high demand and payed well. So to answer your question, drafting O-lineman is a very good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Grundle Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I think the Patriots D line excels, but their O line and the both the Colts lines aren't that much better than ours was from 2000 - 2006. Their schemes and their skill players have been much better. That's true Oldfan. We don't have Bill Belicheck or Tony Dungy. We don't have Tom Brady or Peyton Manning either. And we sure as hell don't have Scott Pioli or Bill Polian. We've got Jim Zorn, Jason Campbell, and Vinny Cerrato. And because of this, I'd rather we start drafting linemen and winning by dominating the trenches....brutal, physical, meathead-style. NFC East style. Cuz we sure as hell ain't outsmarting, out-coaching, or out-skilling anyone with the current regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 anyone who is trying to claim we arent stupid in our drafting... We have been stupid in not keeping our draft picks. we have ignored both of the line...we didn't ignore them.. the lines were addressed in free agency and trades... but we needed to draft depth and we didn't have enough picks to do it. frankly this team needs to be blown up and all these old vets need to go, id be completely content with having this team go 6-10 for a few years if we got to see some great young kids progress and look like were going in the right direction. Cleaning house won't help much because we can't accumulate enough good players to replace them in a year. But we do need to get younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.