WPC: Over the hill all over again?

[HBnotBlades]

Not to mention that we should have been clearing space for next years free agency class. If a new CBA is reached and we do indeed play football next year, there could be a salary cap and there will be an incredible class of free agents. In order to take advantage of next years class we need to clear out cap space with no penalties this year while not adding any high dollar contracts for future years.

There may be no salary cap this year, but the top free agents (Peppers, Rolle, etc.) weren't going to settle for one year deals, meaning we'd be stuck with their high salary when we aren't even sure what the salary cap situation will be in the next few years. Very Risky. In addition, this years free agent class signed vastly overvalued contracts due to how bare free agent market.

[Jumbo]

I'm not wearing any pants.

I don't have this avatar by accident.

Now what's this thread about?

[JimmiJo]

There is nothing in the extensive resumes of Mike Shanahan or Bruce Allen that suggests that they have what it takes to build a grade A team through the draft. Whether it's the unwillingness or the inability to do it is hard to say.

The roster-move evidence so far is about what we should have expected.

Joe Gibbs won 47% of his games in his second tour. I'd guess 55% for Allen-Shanahan.

That was a well-written piece, JJ.

Praise from Oldfan is high praise indeed.

Murf, go ef yourself.

SIGN THEM ALL!!!

[JimmiJo]

I don't have this avatar by accident.

Now what's this thread about?

Catfood, of course.

[CrypticVillain]

I started thinking about this when we signed Kemo and Hicks. In my I was thinking, Bruce Allen is bringing in these vets like his pops. Nice to see that I am not along....

[Darth Tater]

The difference is that these old guys aren't signed to cap-killing long term-deals like Randy, Griff, ARE, etc., just one or two year trial runs for cheap.

The OTH gang weren't cap-killer either since at that time there was no cap. Hell, many of the guys made less than their fellow graduates at that time. Problem was they took draft picks to get. Of course George Allen's strategy turned a perennial loser (maybe Lombardi could have done it but he only had one year) into a winner almost immediately, brought in the core of the Joe Gibbs teams of 1981-1984 and the basics behind the style of defense we played till 1993.

[Jumbo]

Catfood, of course.

Ah, dinner.

The difference is that these old guys aren't signed to cap-killing long term-deals like Randy, Griff, ARE, etc., just one or two year trial runs for cheap.

I don't think I have ever seen so many one year deals.

As JJ said, good points. And the article was well done. It is noteworthy how many vets we are bringing on versus flooding the ranks with younger bodies, even when accounting for the apparent pool of talent issues (at the positions sought on the team) in this years draft. The situation reflects the level of thought Shan/Allen are applying to righting the ship. It is not some simplistic, or even black and white plan.

Widespread change was certainly needed, but as opposed to just "dumping the vets" and taking on "only youngsters", they are using what they regard as intelligent stop-gaps (hence the limited contracts) from a veteran pool until they see young talent they think are seriously good investments, also allowing for any of the stop-gaps to surprise and stick.

The idea it seems they embrace is a mix of being competitive from day one and building for a long-term consistent winner with youth, but not one at significant expense to the other.

How even just this next year is likely to go is hard to call in this first off-season. Neither over-slurping or over-agonizing about the FO moves is factually valid at this point. As murf implied, the signs are certainly more encouraging than we've had in a long time. That doesn't mean they aren't subject to intelligent criticism and questioning.

As with the Marko vs. aging WR's matter and the resulting disagreement on the board, or the RB situation, even the choice of Williams over Okung, there is room for debate. So far I have agreed with those choices.

[Darth Tater]

Here's a thought - value the draft. Build with youth. It worked for the Capitals and looks like it'll do alright for the Nationals too.

If given the choice, management should always side with youth. Add in a few smart free agent signings to round out the roster and you'll be able to compete for several seasons. Not just one before it's time to start over again.

Don't know about those sports but this strategy has rarely worked in the NFL. Winning is what breeds winning. George Allen's strategy is as much to credit (in a very positive way) for our early success under Gibbs 1.0 and even some beyond. He brought in the core of the first Gibbs teams (1981-1984), designed the basics of the defense, developed our defensive coaching staff that we had under Gibbs 1.0 and modernized much of our overall team management philosophies. He is why special teams is such an integral part of modern football and some of his effect can be seen in ALL defenses used today (in the NFL's defensive history, only Shaugnessy and Landry are more important).

[redskindan07]

I don't think that it would shock anyone if some of those aging WR's didn't make the team. There will still be some out there that will be let go by their teams. Time will tell...

[Oldfan]

Ah, dinner.

You have food on the mind today. From this next paragraph I can tell you're a believer in the free lunch.

The idea it seems they embrace is a mix of being competitive from day one and building for a long-term consistent winner with youth, but not one at significant expense to the other.

[TheLongshot]

I think a lot of this offseason is a reflection of what is out there. In this unusual year, we have no cap, but not a lot of players to spend that on because player movement is restricted. So, you get a lot of older players, which generally are not in high demand due to their age.

Personally, I don't see the building of this team to be all that different from Gibbs II's first year here. We made a big trade for a veteran QB. We built that defense out of a lot of guys off the street. Course, they had some greater flexibility in some ways because of the talent available and the team's ability to maneuver the salary cap than this year's team does.

What I do hope that is different this time is that we do give room to develop youngsters. Gibbs liked to fill his backups with veterans, which is pretty good for winning now, but doesn't do much for the future of your team. It is always a balancing act, because in this league we are not allowed the luxury of time to develop players. This is why I found all the suggestions that the roster should be gutted and replaced with a bunch of young players. News flash: that only happens when you don't have anyone better to play. Over time, a lot of those young players will likely be replaced by better players, either other young players or veterans.

As for how old this team is going to be, that is still up in the air. Many of the veterans signed this offseason still have to win jobs. Many won't.

[thecardiacrll]

Well the original OTH gang got this team to a SB, so there's that to look forward to.

Thats exactly what i thought when I first read this article. Because if this over the hill gang is as successfull as the first one I will be excited.

[Jumbo]

You have food on the mind today. From this next paragraph I can tell you're a believer in the free lunch.

I knew my framing of the matter made such a comment likely, but it is not accurate. It is not automatically indicative of "playing both sides of the fence", or "trying to have your cake and eat it too", or looking for a "free lunch", metaphorically. It is not accurate when applied to my thinking. The way I use the frame applies to a level of competent and informed discernment and solid decision making among options rather than some myopic sweeping generalized strategy or the self-defeating results of emphasizing "competitive now" OVER long-term success.

Long term success should be the #1 priority with that having precedence in decisions, but the two goals having shared appreciation and the idea of making substantial progress to the big priority are nor mutually exclusive. You're smart enough to know the pitfalls and rewards of any and all such approaches and the fact that "statistics" of any single "way" do not support it's transcendence. The "proof will be in the pudding" (to continue the metaphors and the food theme ) , if even then, as to whether this FO is that smart (or that lucky).

[littleskins]

To be honest who were the young players on the market? I can't think of anyone that we would have been a good choice for us. Maybe someone can recall young FAs that would have been a good pick for us.

[Aluadan]

And this type of article is exactly why some people just hate the media. You failed to mention the most obvious reason and that is the fact that players need 6+ season to become a UFA which leads to the fact that sure, they're going to be signing a lot of guys with 6 or more season under their belt, they don't exactly have a choice.

So I guess you were hoping the Skins would give up draft picks to pick up younger guys or sign questionable players that were cut from their previous teams, which doesn't make much sense.

As for throwing a ton of cash at the select few quality free agents available, you have no idea what kind of impact that will have once there is a new CBA in place.

[mossomo]

Here's a thought - value the draft.

No one is arguing against the draft. I think the majority of us on ES are sick of our picks being traded away. That said, when you have holes post draft that need to be filled don't tell me youth should trump known production. Griping about age when there is a glaring deficiency makes no sense. We milked the draft with what picks we had, that's the reality, now it's about plugging holes with able bodies who can make plays.

[themurf]

Don't know about those sports but this strategy has rarely worked in the NFL.

I'll be watching the Eagles closely this year, because they basically dumped all their old guys this past offseason to try and go this route. They've always valued the draft and had a ton of picks each year, but this particular offseason they basically turned the team over to younger guys. I think if they have success, many other teams in this copycat league will follow suit.

[themurf]

No one is arguing against the draft. I think the majority of us on ES are sick of our picks being traded away. That said, when you have holes post draft that need to be filled don't tell me youth should trump known production. Griping about age when there is a glaring deficiency makes no sense. We milked the draft with what picks we had, that's the reality, now it's about plugging holes with able bodies who can make plays.

Reading this comment, it really seems like you and I are on the same page. I just don't have a lot of faith in guys like Joey Galloway coming in and turning back the clock. But like you said, after the draft only so much can be done.

Old guys get hurt a lot more often and take longer to recovery from injury than younger guys. You can't built a team long-term this way and expect everything to be rosy, but it's pretty much the only option the 'Skins had right now. Lets just hope this front office keeps draft picks a little more often moving forward. Cheers.

[Darth Tater]

I'll be watching the Eagles closely this year, because they basically dumped all their old guys this past offseason to try and go this route. They've always valued the draft and had a ton of picks each year, but this particular offseason they basically turned the team over to younger guys. I think if they have success, many other teams in this copycat league will follow suit.

A successful year for Philadelphia would not disprove my point. There is nothing in my statement that indicates that drafting is not important nor that teams that are already good shouldn't move guys they no longer need. The Eagles did get rid of a lot of their older guys but have guys in the pipeline to replace them because they have been good. They would not have had all those picks if they weren't good. YOU NEED TO BE GOOD BEFORE YOU HAVE PICKS.

[themurf]

YOU NEED TO BE GOOD BEFORE YOU HAVE PICKS.

Um ... I'm pretty sure you get draft picks even if you have an unsuccessful season. In fact, some would even suggest they give you a higher selection in the draft if you aren't good. It's still what you do with those picks that matters.

[bedlamVR]

Old guys get hurt a lot more often and take longer to recovery from injury than younger guys. You can't built a team long-term this way and expect everything to be rosy, but it's pretty much the only option the 'Skins had right now. Lets just hope this front office keeps draft picks a little more often moving forward. Cheers.

Young guys get injured and miss just as much time because of poor conditioning and perhaps just not being used to being able to protect themseles as they should .

There is no long term anymore in the NFL ... 4 years is the best most teams can hope for becaue of the way contracts are written .

Watch the Eagles all you want, you perhaps should have being paying attention before because cutting grey beards for shinny new young players has been their MO for some time .

They have a habit of letting go players when they think they have reached the end of their usefulness but they don't always replace them with like for like players ....and somehow their trophy cabinet stays empty ...

getting younger is not the same as getting better ... but it does mean you wages bill normally gets reduced .

[Johns Bass]

Maybe Shanny & company see the talent that is on the team but thinks it needs to be 'awaken'. If the guys you have just need to be pushed a bit - old vets do that better than rookies.

Overall, I think the 'O'er da 'ill Gang' has more to do with exposing the talent of the youth already there. Those guys either need a nudge or a pink slip. If the talent is not there - you plug in the old guy's.

Not all the young dudes will get cut - but the all of the older gentlemen could.

So, more than likely, I believe the vets are playing more against each other for a job versus playing against the youth movement.

[themurf]

Watch the Eagles all you want, you perhaps should have being paying attention before because cutting grey beards for shinny new young players has been their MO for some time .

And in related news, they've won a hell of a lot more games than the Redskins over the last decade or so. Hmmm. Isn't that just the craziest thing?

[TheLongshot]

And in related news, they've won a hell of a lot more games than the Redskins over the last decade or so. Hmmm. Isn't that just the craziest thing?

I guess that's what you get when you can have the same head coach and QB for most of that time.

[Zazzaro703]

I don't mind the approach this offseason because like previous posters have said limited draft picks as well as needing 6 years to become an UFA what choices do we have??? We could have overpaid for the top tier free agents this year but we didn't. We could have also traded our draft for Bradford but got Mc5 and Williams instead. The jury is still out but I like this approach provided we keep all of our picks for the next 2 years and draft a QB with one of those top picks to learn from Mc5. We can be competive now with drafting needs the next 2 years