MassSkinsFan Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 I think they do have a plan ( I hope ). Last year Snyderatto drafted some WR's with great potential especially for a West Coast offense. This year, Snyderatto picked up Haynesworth, Orakpo, and Jarmon- great for the DLine. A lot of people say they did not address the OLine that much. Not true- they got Dockery and tried to get Ray Willis from Seattle but he resigned with the Seahawks. Next years draft and FA will truly show if they have a plan. If they draft OLine and LB's then they have a plan. If they start drafting more TE's and Punters then....DC we have a problem. I agree with you and with the OP. Givent the number of potential problems there were to fix I think we're well on our way to seeing them resolved. This year could be a struggle due to our inability to make significant upgrades on OL. However, if the OL can hold together and do a decent job, I think the team will be much improved over last year. Either way I think by 2010 we'll see a much better OL and team overall. It seems that instead of looking for quick fixes and easy solutions as it did ten years ago our FO now understands that some patience is required if we want a winner. I'm pretty sure that has something to do with JGG's second stint here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The reason Snyderatto has ignored drafting OLs high in the draft is because they don't sell jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Look at how well that's worked out so far. The difference between us and teams like the Pats and Colts is that they know how to find talent and how to play to player's strengths. For us, it seems to be, bring in some scrubs and hope we can groom them into something at least halfway decent (doesn't always happen this way, but it's happened many times). Hope isn't a strategy. Sorry but the difference between the Skins and the Colts and Pats is the lack of a HOF QB. They both hit home runs with their QBs and the results speak for themselves. We have hitched our fortunes to Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The difference between us and teams like the Pats and Colts is that they know how to find talent and how to play to player's strengths. For us, it seems to be, bring in some scrubs and hope we can groom them into something at least halfway decent (doesn't always happen this way, but it's happened many times). Hope isn't a strategy. +1 Imo the reason they draft well is because of continuity. If you run the same scheme you have a profile for what types of players fit into your scheme. The draft isn't a blind crap shoot trying to find players for different schemes and regimes. They go into the draft knowing that a player that fits profile X will work in their scheme because players that meet profile X had success in the past. An example of this success is with the Redskins secondary. They have drafted well because the scheme didn't change under Greg(g) and he and his coaches knew what types of players fit into his system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST is my boy Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 The answer is no. Even if there was a "plan", Snyder would stray from that plan the second something shiny and new hit the market. He just needs to chill out, and let whats going to happen, happen. If we are going to suck then fine, lets start building our team with some draft picks. Im tired of spending like the Yankees, and playing like the Orioles. Instead, use that money to keep the good players that we do actually draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farbod21 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Sorry but the difference between the Skins and the Colts and Pats is the lack of a HOF QB. They both hit home runs with their QBs and the results speak for themselves. We have hitched our fortunes to Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell. So glad someone else gets it. Drafting a top QB makes your entire FO and franchise look like geniuses no matter what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Waterboy Posted August 4, 2009 Author Share Posted August 4, 2009 So glad someone else gets it. Drafting a top QB makes your entire FO and franchise look like geniuses no matter what they do. So how would Manning or Brady do if they had come to the Redskins when they were drafted? Still be HOF QB's ... probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Orapko, the three 2's, HOrton, Tryon(yeah), Moore and Barnes, all good picks IMO. Add the developmental QB picks and you have a FO that is functioning well beyond what we had before Gibbs got in Snyder's ear. To say the FO is function well beyond what the SKin's had with Gibbs/Synder is asinine. Orakpo, Barnes, and Henson have yet to play one down - The Three "2's" have yet to proven anything on the field, and the jury's out on Tryon. So that leaves Horton (stud) and Moore. Moore has promise,...we'll see. My point is this -- until the Skins have success in the form of W's and Playoff appearances and the serious possibility of a SuperBowl you cannot say they're "functioning well beyond what we had before Gibbs got in Snyder's era". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Sorry but the difference between the Skins and the Colts and Pats is the lack of a HOF QB. They both hit home runs with their QBs and the results speak for themselves. We have hitched our fortunes to Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell. Having a HOF QB is only one difference. Another is having a competent FO w/a real GM, which both the Colts and Pat's have had for well over a decade. How do you think they acquired they're HOF QB's? A good FO knows how to put together a team -- properly evaluating talent, attitude and smarts to have the right mix and chemistry is fairly important. That's exactly what the Skins do not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillSkinzFan84 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 I dont know if they have a 3 year plan or not but I do know that we are in pretty good shape for the most part in terms of having young talent. Quietly we are adding young talented players to the team through the draft. We have Horton, Kareem Moore, Landry, Orakpo, Thomas, Kelly, Sleepy Davis, Cooley, Rob Jackson, Montgomery, Golston, Rocky, Rogers, Tryon, hopefully Barnes will be good. If you add the free agents like Hall, and Haynesworth than we figure to be pretty good talent wise for the next few years. We just have to keep stacking young talent in the draft from here on out. Our biggest concern is the QB position and the o-line. Those are the positions that might hold us back. We shall see But overall I think Snyder/Cerrato have done a better job than people give them credit for. Remember they were smart enough to draft S.T. over Winslow and then we got Cooley in the 3rd round. May look like an easy decision now but at the time there were plenty of people on this board that wanted other positions than a safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Sorry but the difference between the Skins and the Colts and Pats is the lack of a HOF QB. They both hit home runs with their QBs and the results speak for themselves. We have hitched our fortunes to Mark Brunell, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell. So glad someone else gets it. Drafting a top QB makes your entire FO and franchise look like geniuses no matter what they do. You know how rare these "franchise" QBs are? How many QBs are good enough to: makes your entire FO and franchise look like geniuses no matter what they do 2? Manning and Brady So, instead of building a team they should chase after a franchise QB. And whenever a QB doesn't become a "franchise" QB the team should scrape that plan bring in new coaches and try again with another QB?:doh: And BTW the Colts and the Pats are good all around football teams, from FO to coaches to players. The Pats went 11-5 without Tom Brady their team is good enough to be competitive with Matt Cassell who was a back-up his entire career including college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I feel that Gibbs was more short-term, hence why they always traded away draft picks during that time, and a desperation move after the Spurrier debacle. The moves to grab Lloyd, Archuleta, Saunders was supposed to improve a 2005 playoff team(outdated offense, replacement for David Pattent, a solid safety needed for Gregg's scheme) but that backfired miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Snyder doesn't know how to spell the word "plan" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 There is a plan and it's one that should work. -- build primarily through the draft -- emphasize BPA over need -- seize opportunities to fill the gaps through free agency -- on offense, use the pass to effect ball control -- add players who fit the scheme well, especially on offense -- replace coaches if necessary but maintain scheme continuity There is no three-year plan. There's really no point in that. They want to improve the team as fast as they can, but how long it will take to win big is unpredictable. Since they aren't drafting with the emphasis on need, they aren't planning to fix the O line first. That's why Oher wasn't picked over Orakpo, the BPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.