Homer: A statistical look at just how bad Redskins' offensive line is

[TheLongshot]

As far as drafting O-line, just look at the jets. I think 3 out of their 5 starters were first or second round picks (could be wrong on that one). And not only do we need to pick O-lineman on the first day from now on, but we need to draft O-lineman every single year. That's what the good teams do -- keep supplementing them year-in and year-out with 3rd, 4th, or 5th rounders. That's how you get to a place where the lines are no longer a weakness and you can really start going after the skill positions.

The problem is, you only get to that point when you aren't starting with a new coach every couple of years and have to come up with players to build around. Fact is, until we have some consistancy, it is going to be difficult to build anything.

[Conn]

If we draft anyting other than OL and maybe 1 DL NT in the first 3 rounds we are idiots.

We have 1 O lineman right now.

I am so sick of seeing big name lineman come in and fail to work out.

Let's draft the trench talent and add the pieces once we have the frame and engine built.

You don't pick the tires and colors before the engine is built.

I agree with you in theory.

But we can't just go out and spend our first 3 picks on lineman no matter what. Especially in the first round, you HAVE to take the best value.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Conn...would we have still had those picks if we traded up to get Bradford? I'm still not against having Bradford (and even sitting him in 2010 if the OL is still THAT bad), but I'm not sure you'd still have a 2nd and 4th if you did whatever it took to get Bradford.

[Conn]

Conn...would we have still had those picks if we traded up to get Bradford? I'm still not against having Bradford (and even sitting him in 2010 if the OL is still THAT bad), but I'm not sure you'd still have a 2nd and 4th if you did whatever it took to get Bradford.

That's a good question. A very good one. I was kind of assuming we would have given our 1st and next years first, with a 3rd thrown in from somewhere.

But either way, I have a feeling that we'd still have our 4th, at least.

So even if we didn't have our 2nd to take Saffold, I'd still take:

Bradford, Bruce Campbell, etc.

over

McNabb, Trent Williams.

Even if that meant sitting Bradford for awhile to protect his life.

Even if in the short term, the "net talent" acquired was less (which I'm not convinced of), I think in the long run its worth it. Especially if you move Cooley for another pick, and end up keeping that 2nd pick from the McNabb trade this year.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm with you...any draft year that is built around a young, franchise QB is a good one in my opinion.

[Frostx08]

Teams like Tampa Bay and Kansas City also opted to fully embrace a youth movement in the last few years and, related news, both are currently 7-4. All Shanahan did was delay the inevitable a year because he thought he could work some sort of magic with an over-the-hill roster.

Kansas City I'll give you....though Thomas Jones has made a huge difference...as has Eric Berry. However Tampa Bay I wouldn't hop on their bandwagon just yet. They have a possibly good future..and Josh Freeman has been cool, but they have yet to beat a winning team. Some of these teams with success would struggle with our schedule

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Kansas City I'll give you....though Thomas Jones has made a huge difference...as has Eric Berry. However Tampa Bay I wouldn't hop on their bandwagon just yet. They have a possibly good future..and Josh Freeman has been cool, but they have yet to beat a winning team. Some of these teams with success would struggle with our schedule

Tampa Bay is reminding me more and more of the 1996 Washington Redskins. Hot start against a weak schedule and a fade down the stretch. If (read: When) they lose this week to the Falcons, expect things to get very dicey down there. With the youth they have, it's still a great season for them...but they aren't contenders yet.

[Frostx08]

I think we should use maybe 2 picks on linemen, while acquiring a solid one through free agency or the draft. Once again, a smooth mix of free agency, draft, and trades is key imo

As for starting with a young franchise Qb, it sounds great. It's easy to look at another team succeed and say "I wish that was us". But that isn't always the case. Jason Campbell was supposed to be our once franchise QB...that didn't work out. Drafting right or wrong could set you back for years and years to come....being successful imo isn't always doing the cliche thing but making the right moves as to what fits the team.

Kind of reminds me of people saying we should have gotten Vick in the offseason. Again it's easy to say something like that when you see someone else succeeding all of a sudden.

---------- Post added December-2nd-2010 at 12:38 PM ----------

Tampa Bay is reminding me more and more of the 1996 Washington Redskins. Hot start against a weak schedule and a fade down the stretch. If (read: When) they lose this week to the Falcons, expect things to get very dicey down there. With the youth they have, it's still a great season for them...but they aren't contenders yet.

Yep. Don't get me wrong once again they're talented. Blount has potential...Freeman has potential, and Mike Williams is a beast. But their record...like the Atlanta Falcons is deceptive. The Atlanta Falcons are also good....better even, but again....weak schedule

[Coach Janky Spanky]

The problem is, you only get to that point when you aren't starting with a new coach every couple of years and have to come up with players to build around. Fact is, until we have some consistancy, it is going to be difficult to build anything.

True, although the jets had a lot of turnaround during that time in coaching as well...but they had consistency at GM with tannenbaum. Hopefully we're looking at the beginning of serious consistency with Allen and Shanahan, and the owner out of the picture. Would still like to see us get a solid personnel guy in here to help Shanahan out, but not sure if that's gonna happen.

[Conn]

As for starting with a young franchise Qb, it sounds great. It's easy to look at another team succeed and say "I wish that was us". But that isn't always the case. Jason Campbell was supposed to be our once franchise QB...that didn't work out. Drafting right or wrong could set you back for years and years to come....being successful imo isn't always doing the cliche thing but making the right moves as to what fits the team.

Campbell wasn't anywhere near the prospect that Bradford was. He shouldn't even have been a first round pick. If we didn't trade up for him, he wouldn't have been.

I agree with what you're saying about having to make the moves that fit your specific team/scheme, but getting a franchise QB for the future should always be at the top of that list, if you don't already have one. Always.

But pretending like drafting Bradford was anything like trading multiple picks to draft Campbell is crazy. Outside of his injury history (which is a total wildcard--he's been totally fine, while Matt Stafford, who was relatively healthy during college, can't even stay on the field), he was 10x the prospect.

Not to mention, I'd trust Shanahan's evaluation of a young QB over Vinny/Gibbs any day of the week.

[themurf]

Kansas City I'll give you....though Thomas Jones has made a huge difference...as has Eric Berry. However Tampa Bay I wouldn't hop on their bandwagon just yet. They have a possibly good future..and Josh Freeman has been cool, but they have yet to beat a winning team. Some of these teams with success would struggle with our schedule

You are what your record says you are and both of them are 7-4. Young players like Jamaal Charles and Dwayne Bowe are having monster seasons for the Chiefs and youngsters like LaGarrette Blount and Mike Williams are carrying the load in Tampa. Conversely, the Redskins have discovered Brandon Banks this season. That's it. If you want to stretch things and give them credit for 27-year-old Anthony Armstrong, then fine. But my point is this is a wasted year because Shanahan and friends overestimated their ability to work a miracle with average talent and so we'll be here again next season hoping and praying that this franchise eventually embraces the same youth movement mentality.

[p0rtis26]

Hear, hear. I think the biggest mistake of the current regime is the poor self-evaluation. You have to know your own roster! It seems either they thought players were better than they are or they over-estimated their ability to coach 'em up, as Murf alluded to.

An interesting exercise I went through a few weeks back that I wanted to share. I went through each teams roster and see how many players drafted after the first round become home grown pro bowlers or pro bowl caliber. The Redskins have exactly 1 - Chris Cooley. The average around the division was 5-6. I feel you make up ground on the rest of the league by drafting quality of players after round 1, because everyone gets quality in round 1. If you sign one of these guys in FA, you are most likely overpaying. Go check out a few rosters and see what you find. Then, check out the Skins.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You are what your record says you are and both of them are 7-4.

Yes, they are currently 7-4 and the 1996 Redskins were 8-3 at this point in that season (with a pretty young team). The Bucs are very likely to finish 9-7 and out of the playoffs just like that team. Like I said, that's not really a long-term indictment of their team, but I wouldn't point to them as a team that's turned it around for good because they've beaten bad teams all year (and lost every game against a good team).

The Redskins have found Banks and Armstrong (I don't consider 27 to be too old to have a 5-year run at WR). By the end of the year, we might be saying that they've discovered Montgomery, Austin, Williams, and Torain as well. We have to let the entire season play out don't we?

[themurf]

Yes, they are currently 7-4 and the 1996 Redskins were 8-3 at this point in that season (with a pretty young team). The Bucs are very likely to finish 9-7 and out of the playoffs just like that team. Like I said, that's not really a long-term indictment of their team, but I wouldn't point to them as a team that's turned it around for good because they've beaten bad teams all year (and lost every game against a good team).

The Redskins have found Banks and Armstrong (I don't consider 27 to be too old to have a 5-year run at WR). By the end of the year, we might be saying that they've discovered Montgomery, Austin, Williams, and Torain as well. We have to let the entire season play out don't we?

If the Redskins could beat bad teams, they'd have three more wins right now.

[thebluefood]

The biggest failure of Mike Shanahan in my opinion was his inability to manage expectations. He took over a four-win team. Had he come in, tempered expectations and admitted that there was a lot of work to be done before the Redskins can earn a seat back at the grown-up's table, I truly believe this season would have been much easier to stomach.

The reason the Capitals are treated like royalty is because the owner and the general manager have been completely open and honest since the day the decided to rebuild the franchise. Ted Leonsis calls it transparency, and says he owes it to paying customers to be upfront and honest.

Shanahan, it seems, is trying to win now and build for the future - but you can't really have it both ways. Don't try to slap a band-aid on a decade-long problem by signing Joey Galloway. Embrace the goodwill Redskins fans are showing you and do your best to get some youth in the lineup. At the same time, tell your fanbase that's what you're doing. Honesty goes a long way towards building that patience.

Instead, on the first day Shanahan took over the job, he thumbed his nose at the idea of rebuilding. Even went as far as to say he hates the word. Here's his direct quotes from his introductory press conference:

On if Redskins fans should brace for a rebuilding period:

“That’s always tough because I always hate to use the word rebuilding. I think any time you win four games that’s going to happen. People are going to talk about rebuilding and doing the things that it takes to be the best team possible. I’ve got very high standards just like everybody in this organization. I can’t tell you how long it’s going to take, but I can guarantee you one thing – we’ll get better every day and hopefully it won’t be long until we’re back to where this organization has been.”

On how much of a rebuilding process there will be along the offensive line:

“Well like I said, I’m going to have to evaluate that over the next few weeks and I’ll be able to give you a better answer after looking at all the film and talking to some of these guys. What we’re going to do is take a look at our personnel before we decide exactly what we will do offensively, defensively, and on special teams. That’s part of it. As we talked about before, we’ll be working hard every day to improve our talent level, to improve the competition so we can get back to where we’ve been.”

When I grow up, I wanna be just like Murf.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[themurf]

Yes, they are currently 7-4 and the 1996 Redskins were 8-3 at this point in that season (with a pretty young team). The Bucs are very likely to finish 9-7 and out of the playoffs just like that team. Like I said, that's not really a long-term indictment of their team, but I wouldn't point to them as a team that's turned it around for good because they've beaten bad teams all year (and lost every game against a good team).

The Redskins have found Banks and Armstrong (I don't consider 27 to be too old to have a 5-year run at WR). By the end of the year, we might be saying that they've discovered Montgomery, Austin, Williams, and Torain as well. We have to let the entire season play out don't we?

PS - Can we really give the team credit for "discovering" Trent Williams? I'm pretty sure they're expected to land a competent player with a top-five pick. Ryan Torain has not shown any indication that he can ever stay healthy for more than one or two games at a time and Terrence Austin should probably play more than four NFL snaps before we crown his ass. But other than that, I completely agree with you.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If the Redskins could beat bad teams, they'd have three more wins right now.

Not if they didn't show the ability to beat good teams. As is the case, they've lost 3 games to "bad" teams and won 3 games against "good" teams so they'd be right about where they are if they had the same tendencies as the Bucs.

[VRIEL1]

Bottom line is: we need to be patient and the FO rebuild this team in their image.

Which is why I keep saying it would have been better for the team to have used the so called TABOO word REBUILD. Fans would have had a lower expectation and been pleasantly supprised by their performance vs. nit picking every game to death and saying..." Fire Haslett, fire Shanahan" so on and so forth.

But it is what it is. It's going to take time to fix what took 10+ yrs to erode. Funny, When Gibbs was brought in I said we need skill players. We need WR's and RB's. Year after year I said this. Year after year I told the OL fanatics they were wrong. Then it dawned on me that it wasn't the players but the position coach at WR for their lack of catching and route running. Finally the owner gets rid of the cancer on this team (Cerrato) and is letting actual football people run his team. Somewhat proven football people at that. and I find myself last year and this year saying.... "I was wrong, we need to build from the inside out." There I said it. However I keep hearing supposedly football people all over the radio saying we need skill players from the draft. lol. No we need either a RT or Center picked up in the 1st round and either one we don't pick in the second or NT.

Look to make a run at Vince Jackson and Houshmendzadeh in FA. If we have a decent OL it will give McNabb time to throw and any RB a hole to run through.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

PS - Can we really give the team credit for "discovering" Trent Williams? I'm pretty sure they're expected to land a competent player with a top-five pick. Ryan Torain has not shown any indication that he can ever stay healthy for more than one or two games at a time and Terrence Austin should probably play more than four NFL snaps before we crown his ass. But other than that, I completely agree with you.

I meant Keiland Williams as a third-down back or depth at RB. I agree with you that Trent should be a given. As for Torain and Austin, I'm not crowning anyone...just saying that we don't know what will shake out from the last third of the season yet. That's why I'm not comfortable crowning the Bucs as more encouraging than we are in early-December.

If we finish strong and they continue to lose every game against a good team...will your opinion change? Also, you mentioned earlier that we'd have 8 wins if we could beat bad teams. If that were the case, we'd be better than the Bucs (since we've shown the ability to rise up and beat good teams on occasion as well).

[themurf]

I meant Keiland Williams as a third-down back or depth at RB. I agree with you that Trent should be a given. As for Torain and Austin, I'm not crowning anyone...just saying that we don't know what will shake out from the last third of the season yet. That's why I'm not comfortable crowning the Bucs as more encouraging than we are in early-December.

If we finish strong and they continue to lose every game against a good team...will your opinion change? Also, you mentioned earlier that we'd have 8 wins if we could beat bad teams. If that were the case, we'd be better than the Bucs (since we've shown the ability to rise up and beat good teams on occasion as well).

Just imagine how many young guys you could try to get excited for if the Redskins didn't actually have the oldest roster in the NFL ...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just imagine how many young guys you could try to get excited for if the Redskins didn't actually have the oldest roster in the NFL ...

That would be more exciting, true. But I wonder if they have more old guys than most teams or if they had just a few very old guys when that stat was captured. I would guess that Bidwell, Daniels, Holliday, Sellers, and Galloway would skew that statistic a lot.

[themurf]

That would be more exciting, true. But I wonder if they have more old guys than most teams or if they had just a few very old guys when that stat was captured. I would guess that Bidwell, Daniels, Holliday, Sellers, and Galloway would skew that statistic a lot.

You do realize that three of those five guys are still on the roster, right? I'm pretty sure each of them has gotten older since the season started too. And honestly, even if the Redskins were the second or third oldest team in the NFL now, would it change the point? The Redskins still refuse to embrace a youth movement.

[illone]

So yeah, they don't have to do any of that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

I think they should also, but I have my own two eyes and ears and know how to think so I'm able to form my own opinion on how well I think the team will do. For the record I put down eight wins, and put $500 on it also (Vegas line was 7.5 wins, and I took the over) because I figured a competent coach and QB was good for at least four more wins. Regardless of that I don't expect the team owes me any explanation of why they do what they do, but yea would be nice if they CC'd me on company emails and draft board projections.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You do realize that three of those five guys are still on the roster, right? I'm pretty sure each of them has gotten older since the season started too. And honestly, even if the Redskins were the second or third oldest team in the NFL now, would it change the point? The Redskins still refuse to embrace a youth movement.

I realize that...and also realize that none of those remaining three are guaranteed to be here next year. So, if you have one-year solutions at some positions, why does it matter if they are 25, 30, or 35? Something tells me that if you replace each of those five names with a 25-year old, we'd be somewhere near the middle of the list, not just the second- or third-oldest team. I could (as always) be wrong though.

[themurf]

Something tells me that if you replace each of those five names with a 25-year old, we'd be somewhere near the middle of the list, not just the second- or third-oldest team.

And you'd have a head start on figuring out which young players you can build around and you'd also be positioning yourself for future success and you'd no longer be building your team year-to-year because ... gasp ... you'd actually have stumbled upon long-term planning and vision. Crazy talk, I know.