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

[addicted]

I hope whenever someone posts on this forum that we should be using our first round pick on a skill position player they link this thread to that thought. Our line was great in the 1980's and we won superbowls. Our lines been terrible all decade and we won nothing. Of all the teams in the league that should understand the concept and importance of winning the line of scrimmage we should be the leaders in that. It's such a joke to me to see the Hogettes each Sunday with the sad shape the teams offensive line is in now. We didn't learn anything, We are the Redskins and should honor our tradition and have the best damn offensive line in the game today every single year. Until we do again I see nothing but this same sort of season every year occuring as some bad dream Groundhog day.

[Frostx08]

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.

Always?? No....in fact that should be 3rd on the list

Listen I like Sam Bradford...I think and hope he'll be great. But whether or not Campbell was near the "prospect" Bradford was....he was still a 1st round pick and was seen as having all the tools. Who knows he may still have success, I'm pulling for him, but you never know.

Prospects are what they are...prospects. If Bradford falls into a slump next year and beyond, we'll all be saying "Oh thank God we didn't get him". Fortunately I think he's in a position to succeed.

And that last sentence is key....and why I said a franchise QB should be 3rd on the list. People speak about QB prospects as if it's as easy as get one and we'll have a great Qb for years. It's as much of a crapshoot as saying a team can win a Super Bowl in 4 or 5 years. There are 31 other teams that would have a problem with that statement, and only one can get the Lombardi, if not multiple

To elaborate on my point further, if we're gonna have a franchise QB he NEEDS to be in a position to succeed. If we got Bradford he'd get creamed and probably separate his shoulder again. Look at all the teams with young franchise Qbs....the Jets, Ravens, Falcons, Rams, Buccaneers. They didn't just draft a QB and then take it from there. They laid a foundation for their QB prior

For all the credit that Sam Bradford is getting and rightfully so, the Rams also have Steven Jackson. Not only that, but their defense has been playing well, and their O-line has been looking solid. Same thing can be said for the Ravens(Ray Rice other surrounding foundations), Falcons(same thing), Buccaneers(same thing). All these teams had a foundation laid out for their franchise Qb for them to grow and continue to build on. What do we have? O-line?? Defense?? Running back??

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I want our future franchise QB...whoever he is to have a fair shot. The Washington Redskins does not put ANY franchise Quarterback in a position to succeed at the moment....and what would end up happening is 2-3 years would pass and we wouldn't know what we truly have in him

[Skinsinparadise]

I hope whenever someone posts on this forum that we should be using our first round pick on a skill position player they link this thread to that thought. Our line was great in the 1980's and we won superbowls. Our lines been terrible all decade and we won nothing. Of all the teams in the league that should understand the concept and importance of winning the line of scrimmage we should be the leaders in that. It's such a joke to me to see the Hogettes each Sunday with the sad shape the teams offensive line is in now. We didn't learn anything, We are the Redskins and should honor our tradition and have the best damn offensive line in the game today every single year. Until we do again I see nothing but this same sort of season every year occuring as some bad dream Groundhog day.

Don't see why we must per se use our FIRST ROUNDER on a lineman. A lot of teams build their o line and for that matter d line, using 2nd and third rounders, especially the Giants. Arguably, we are so used to either flopping with our non first rounders or we trade so many 2nd and 3rd rounders away, that we are used to seeing the first round as the be all and end all. Interior lineman are rarely first rounders including elite ones. i recall the year we drafted Tre Johnson in the 2nd round, was same year the Cowboys took Larry Allen in the same round. Pro Bowl guard Chris Snee I believe is the highest round NY giants drafted a lineman, he's a 2nd rounder. Sometimes a real special one like Steve Hutchinson is worth a first rounder, but at least from what I've read thus far no such interior player exists in this draft.

Yeah we drafted Rinehart in the third, but I recall most of the draft geeks had him as a projected 6th or 7th rounder. I don't recall anyone saying he's one of the top interior college players so he arguably was a reach. And if I recall that was only attempt to use an early round pick for a lineman post Chris Samuels.

But yeah top centers and guards are frequently found in the 2nd rounds, right tackles, too. I don't see this as a first round or bust for the O line, especially with all our needs. If there is an elite player like Juilus Jones IMO we take him as opposed to reaching for lets say the OG from FSU who most say is a late first or 2nd rounder. Yeah 2nd round players are usually pretty good, especially when it comes to the interior line. tough to find an elite LT post first round but fortunately we have that covered.

[Frostx08]

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.

You are what your record says you are?? ...so it's that cut and dry huh? No exceptions to the rule? No perspective? No analysis or reason?? Even if you haven't proven anything with your wins or beaten anyone worthy?

Who said I was giving them credit? I was simply pointing out the philosophy behind their statements. To imply that they should come in and just say "we're re-building" when you're trying to change the culture of the team and establish a WINNING ATTITUDE doesn't make much sense. For you to make it seem as if Shanny came in expecting Super Bowl in his 1st year also doesn't make much sense. Of course he's gonna wanna get the most he can out of who he has on the roster, that way he can see what moves to make in the off-season and years to come. I do think he wants to win a Super Bowl within the next 2-3 seasons. Who wouldn't? Nothing is guaranteed with long term plans. I think Shanahan wants to win a Super Bowl in the coming years while leaving FLEXIBILITY to build the team for the future and for a young stud. Contrary to conventional wisdom...it can be done

[TheLongshot]

Yeah we drafted Rinehart in the third, but I recall most of the draft geeks had him as a projected 6th or 7th rounder. I don't recall anyone saying he's one of the top interior college players so he arguably was a reach. And if I recall that was only attempt to use an early round pick for a lineman post Chris Samuels.

Rinehart was a late riser in the draft. He apparently was impressive at the Senior Bowl. I'd guess the main reason why he was initially a 6th or 7th round projection was because he was coming from a small school and that makes it harder to project the player to the pros.

I also think you've forgotten that Dockery was a 3rd round pick.

[TSO]

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.

Actually, you can have it both ways.

I'm not sure why is is simply assumed that a "win now" mentality automatically equates to a "mortgage the future" mentality. Somehow it's become the antithesis of a rebuilding mentality, as you've alluded to. It seems the argument against it simply rejects the very notion that trying to win now doesn't necessarily mean you are giving your future up at all. You could trade draft picks for players in their prime, for instance, who will help you win now all the while giving you a solid amount of years doing it. That's both "win now" and "rebuild". That's just one example. Now, if you screw up and trade draft picks for guys who did well on other teams but aren't fits here, that's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of doing such a thing and is more an issue of scouting.

Another thing completely overlooked is how do players play when their coach is "transparent" and telling them "well, we'll stink for now since we're rebuilding, but go out there and do your best since we're watching the film!"... you really think that's encouraging for anyone involved? Don't tell me that any human being in any profession would be equally as motivated to work hard on a team that has no chance versus one that does. That's why the whole McNabb ordeal makes total sense and, yet, somehow when people are told over and over again that McNabb brings stability to the most important position on the field which helps you evaluate everyone else as well as gives you a chance in every game, it flies right over their head. I don't get it. It's totally logical.

How do you even know what you have with your Oline/WR/RB when the QB himself is failing consistently? McNabb has shown us in just a short time exactly who and what is the problem, hasn't he? We've seen time and time again McNabb escape pressure, so you know he can do it. That means when he isn't escaping pressure, it most likely is on someone in the Oline. Now, as a coach, you can totally pinpoint the guy and say with confidence he was at fault whereas otherwise you'd wonder if your QB just stank and stepped up into the pressure himself at no fault to the Olinemen. Or maybe he just didn't know where to go with the ball, or whatever. The QB probably won't come and tell you that himself, so it is as vital as anything to get a guy you're confident in at that position to evaluate everyone else right.

People keep harping on the McNabb trade as if somehow the future is lost due to giving up a 2nd rounder this year as well as 3rd or 4th coming up. Why? I'd like to know why everyone simply assumes that his age is all-important, when other QBs are just as old and still look to have plenty left. Has McNabb really shown signs of deterioration? I don't see it... he's had issues staying healthy throughout his career in general, but that has little to do with age and more to do with how he plays the position. He's not Brady or Manning-like in that he avoids getting hit at all costs and just goes down when a guy gets two hands on them (heck, Manning goes down when a guy lays a finger on him half the time), he will take hits and will try to get those big guys to bounce off of him in an attempt to extend the play. So, again, the whole "mortgaging the future" thing doesn't work there unless you're simply speculating that McNabb won't last 3 or more years.

That doesn't even factor in the risk of a 2nd round pick being a bust or failing to produce as expected. We got a sure-thing in McNabb at the most important spot on the field, and most likely it'll be that way for at least another 2-3 years... I just don't see where the future got so destroyed here.

As for the other vets we brought in, I think it's best to look at Galloway as a nice example that can be applied everywhere else. How is Galloway a band-aid, when we were so depleted at WR that he was pretty much our only option? Furthermore, why is it assumed that the young guys behind him were not helped by him being there? Have you measured the value of those guys seeing him work and run routes? Do you consider that worthless? If so, you're extremely naive and narrow-minded. As soon as guys like Banks and Austin started improving in practice, what happened? If you claim that has nothing to do with it and Shanny was just blindly trusting Galloway over the young guys and just had to cut him when he did and is just hoping those guys do better than him, then I really can't help you understand a thing, nor do I want to.

Again, the arguments against bringing in those kind of vets are filled to the brim with speculation that they were brought in to be relied upon for the long haul and were hampering the progress of our young'ns! Hilarious. Could it be that those guys were brought in for temporary benefit to help the young guys grow as well as provide a steady presence on the field during game day that defense's have to respect and simply can't go after due to their knowledge? Wouldn't their one-year contracts that are extremely easy to void for the team at any time tell you that is exactly what is happening?

I don't get it at all. Shanahan and Allen have done an incredible job thus far. It's time we acknowledged it as such and stopped whining like little babies about what could've been done different.

[addicted]

Don't see why we must per se use our FIRST ROUNDER on a lineman.

Top three reasons to do that:

1. Because it's the biggest area of need on the team hands down no question. How many teams have you seen plug in a rookie QB and he do very well because they had an offensive line?

2. Because whats the point of repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results? In the past 10 years we've drafted two linemen in the first round - Williams and Samuals. We are the Redskins for Gods sake, the home of the Hogs. The Hogs were a masterful changing powerful offensive line that could win games for us with any RB, any QB, or any WR in the game playing for us. They proved to everyone the way to win was in the trenches yet the minical fanbase forgot this fact. Sorry but it wasn't Gibbs, it was the fact our offensive line was so bad ass we won over and over and over again

3. Have you seen our drafts lately? They aren't pretty. The best time to get an impactful player is our first choice. Even our first choices haven't been great. I'd argue anyone that Trent Williams is far from a sure thing at this point. It's pointless to count on a long shot player to produce for us when we've demonstrated we can't spot talent that well.

A lot of teams build their o line and for that matter d line, using 2nd and third rounders, especially the Giants. Arguably, we are so used to either flopping with our non first rounders or we trade so many 2nd and 3rd rounders away, that we are used to seeing the first round as the be all and end all. Interior lineman are rarely first rounders including elite ones. i recall the year we drafted Tre Johnson in the 2nd round, was same year the Cowboys took Larry Allen in the same round. Pro Bowl guard Chris Snee I believe is the highest round NY giants drafted a lineman, he's a 2nd rounder. Sometimes a real special one like Steve Hutchinson is worth a first rounder, but at least from what I've read thus far no such interior player exists in this draft.

I totally agree but face it. Review this past draft and grade it. I give it a C-. Now review the past 10 years drafts and grade them. We don't have the talent evaluators to contend with the Giants, the Patriots, the Eagles, and others who know how to draft well. Just because they do it doesn't mean we can or will. It's about time that most people understood these facts. Do we really want to see yet another year come and go with us having massive issues on the offensive line AGAIN? I'm sick of the stupidety around the Redskins. The sooner we get an NFL caliber offensive line the better our futures going to be

Yeah we drafted Rinehart in the third, but I recall most of the draft geeks had him as a projected 6th or 7th rounder. I don't recall anyone saying he's one of the top interior college players so he arguably was a reach. And if I recall that was only attempt to use an early round pick for a lineman post Chris Samuels.

But yeah top centers and guards are frequently found in the 2nd rounds, right tackles, too. I don't see this as a first round or bust for the O line, especially with all our needs. If there is an elite player like Juilus Jones IMO we take him as opposed to reaching for lets say the OG from FSU who most say is a late first or 2nd rounder. Yeah 2nd round players are usually pretty good, especially when it comes to the interior line. tough to find an elite LT post first round but fortunately we have that covered.

How's this worked out for us over the last decade?

[TaRskinz]

Et tu Murf? Et Tu?!!

Is this the same Murf from the skinscast? BTW if it is(and i think u r who i thought u were) ..... love the show... keep it up

[SkinsTribeVA]

You mean the lack of a running game doesn't have anything to do with Parker or Johnson?! Someone e-mail this to Mosley!

Great work, as always Murph!

Looking ahead to the draft, the Skins currently sit about the 14th pick. Assuming they pull 2 more wins out their arse (by no means a given!), a 7-9 record last year netted the 10-12 pick in the 1st round. We so desperately need interior lineman, and as usual, the top linemen are tackles. Do they take another tackle such as Anthony Costanzo? Or someone liek Akeem Ayers to pair with Orakpo on the defensive side?

Ideally, they would trade back for a Rodney Hudson and/or hope a Mike Pouncey or Steve Wisnewski falls to us in the 2nd? It's going to be a very interesting off-season. One I actually have some hope for!

Yea I don't think we can afford to go OT high in the 1st two years in a row. I'd be fine with

a) trading back and picking up an additional 2nd rounder (and maybe some more lower picks) an grabbing some combination of OL, DL, and WR/RB (or QB of the future) with those picks, or...

picking up a premier WR/RB/QB in the first then going OL in the second.

[konga2145]

Don't see why we must per se use our FIRST ROUNDER on a lineman. A lot of teams build their o line and for that matter d line, using 2nd and third rounders, especially the Giants. Arguably, we are so used to either flopping with our non first rounders or we trade so many 2nd and 3rd rounders away, that we are used to seeing the first round as the be all and end all. Interior lineman are rarely first rounders including elite ones. i recall the year we drafted Tre Johnson in the 2nd round, was same year the Cowboys took Larry Allen in the same round. Pro Bowl guard Chris Snee I believe is the highest round NY giants drafted a lineman, he's a 2nd rounder. Sometimes a real special one like Steve Hutchinson is worth a first rounder, but at least from what I've read thus far no such interior player exists in this draft.

Yeah we drafted Rinehart in the third, but I recall most of the draft geeks had him as a projected 6th or 7th rounder. I don't recall anyone saying he's one of the top interior college players so he arguably was a reach. And if I recall that was only attempt to use an early round pick for a lineman post Chris Samuels.

But yeah top centers and guards are frequently found in the 2nd rounds, right tackles, too. I don't see this as a first round or bust for the O line, especially with all our needs. If there is an elite player like Juilus Jones IMO we take him as opposed to reaching for lets say the OG from FSU who most say is a late first or 2nd rounder. Yeah 2nd round players are usually pretty good, especially when it comes to the interior line. tough to find an elite LT post first round but fortunately we have that covered.

I agree, we need to open up some holes for the running game. You can't win in the NFL without a running game and we don't have one right now.

[Riggo#44]

Yea I don't think we can afford to go OT high in the 1st two years in a row. I'd be fine with

a) trading back and picking up an additional 2nd rounder (and maybe some more lower picks) an grabbing some combination of OL, DL, and WR/RB (or QB of the future) with those picks, or...

picking up a premier WR/RB/QB in the first then going OL in the second.

Trading back this year, with the labor uncertainty, might be increasingly difficult. If we hadn't traded for Jammal Brown, then I would say OT. However, it looks as though he is getting healthier, and there are so many holes on this roster right now. I really don't want to go RB in the 1st. AJ Green would be the only WR I'd want in the top half of the draft...

The nice thing is, our defense sucks too, so an elite pass-rusher OLB would definitely be worth it as well

[Conn]

I hope whenever someone posts on this forum that we should be using our first round pick on a skill position player they link this thread to that thought.

Most of us aren't saying that you SHOULDN'T use high draft picks on OL.

Just that this year, where we'll be picking, there won't be OL worth taking. You HAVE to get real talent and great value out of that first rounder. You can't reach.

[Oldfan]

Actually, you can have it both ways.

Sure you can you just can't do either very well.

North = rebuild

West = win now

One move to the North, the next to the West, then repeated again and again, doesn't succeed at getting North or West. It's a Northwest plan.

Northwest = mediocrity

The trade of two high picks for McNabb cost us a second and a third or fourth. Trading away the second, third and fourth round picks in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 is the reason our O-line was neglected and is in such sorry shape today. We're repeating the same mistake and expecting a better result.

No one doubts that you and others can come up with a rationale for the trade showing long-term advantages. We heard the same kind of rationales when we made those trades 2004-6.

[TheLongshot]

Top three reasons to do that:

1. Because it's the biggest area of need on the team hands down no question. How many teams have you seen plug in a rookie QB and he do very well because they had an offensive line?

2. Because whats the point of repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results? In the past 10 years we've drafted two linemen in the first round - Williams and Samuals. We are the Redskins for Gods sake, the home of the Hogs. The Hogs were a masterful changing powerful offensive line that could win games for us with any RB, any QB, or any WR in the game playing for us. They proved to everyone the way to win was in the trenches yet the minical fanbase forgot this fact. Sorry but it wasn't Gibbs, it was the fact our offensive line was so bad ass we won over and over and over again

3. Have you seen our drafts lately? They aren't pretty. The best time to get an impactful player is our first choice. Even our first choices haven't been great. I'd argue anyone that Trent Williams is far from a sure thing at this point. It's pointless to count on a long shot player to produce for us when we've demonstrated we can't spot talent that well.

1) That is probably the worst reason to pick an OL. You pick a guy because there is a player worth picking at a position that matches a need. You hope that it is the best player available and you don't lock yourself into a certain position.

I totally agree but face it. Review this past draft and grade it. I give it a C-. Now review the past 10 years drafts and grade them. We don't have the talent evaluators to contend with the Giants, the Patriots, the Eagles, and others who know how to draft well.

First off, it is impossible to grade a draft after one year. Second, what do those teams have that we don't? Stability. All three of those teams have had the same coach, same people picking players for years. Actually, we started to have some solid drafts once Gibbs was here a couple of years and everyone on staff was on the same page for the type of players the coaching staff was looking for. Such things do not happen overnight.

[KDawg]

Sure you can you just can't do either very well.

North = rebuild

West = win now

One move to the North, the next to the West, then repeated again and again, doesn't succeed at getting North or West. It's a Northwest plan.

Northwest = mediocrity

The trade of two high picks for McNabb cost us a second and a third or fourth. Trading away the second, third and fourth round picks in the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 is the reason our O-line was neglected and is in such sorry shape today. We're repeating the same mistake and expecting a better result.

No one doubts that you and others can come up with a rationale for the trade showing long-term advantages. We heard the same kind of rationales when we made those trades 2004-6.

Bingo.

We've been using the "both" approach for over a decade now. We've been stuck in mediocrity.

Since 2000 we're 70-96... Not counting this year.

We're under .500... But by all means, let's keep doing it the same way... It's not insane to do so or anything.

We've had winning records in just two of those seasons... Sounds like a reason to continue doing the same thing to me...

[Frostx08]

Actually, you can have it both ways.

I'm not sure why is is simply assumed that a "win now" mentality automatically equates to a "mortgage the future" mentality. Somehow it's become the antithesis of a rebuilding mentality, as you've alluded to. It seems the argument against it simply rejects the very notion that trying to win now doesn't necessarily mean you are giving your future up at all. You could trade draft picks for players in their prime, for instance, who will help you win now all the while giving you a solid amount of years doing it. That's both "win now" and "rebuild". That's just one example. Now, if you screw up and trade draft picks for guys who did well on other teams but aren't fits here, that's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of doing such a thing and is more an issue of scouting.

Another thing completely overlooked is how do players play when their coach is "transparent" and telling them "well, we'll stink for now since we're rebuilding, but go out there and do your best since we're watching the film!"... you really think that's encouraging for anyone involved? Don't tell me that any human being in any profession would be equally as motivated to work hard on a team that has no chance versus one that does. That's why the whole McNabb ordeal makes total sense and, yet, somehow when people are told over and over again that McNabb brings stability to the most important position on the field which helps you evaluate everyone else as well as gives you a chance in every game, it flies right over their head. I don't get it. It's totally logical.

How do you even know what you have with your Oline/WR/RB when the QB himself is failing consistently? McNabb has shown us in just a short time exactly who and what is the problem, hasn't he? We've seen time and time again McNabb escape pressure, so you know he can do it. That means when he isn't escaping pressure, it most likely is on someone in the Oline. Now, as a coach, you can totally pinpoint the guy and say with confidence he was at fault whereas otherwise you'd wonder if your QB just stank and stepped up into the pressure himself at no fault to the Olinemen. Or maybe he just didn't know where to go with the ball, or whatever. The QB probably won't come and tell you that himself, so it is as vital as anything to get a guy you're confident in at that position to evaluate everyone else right.

People keep harping on the McNabb trade as if somehow the future is lost due to giving up a 2nd rounder this year as well as 3rd or 4th coming up. Why? I'd like to know why everyone simply assumes that his age is all-important, when other QBs are just as old and still look to have plenty left. Has McNabb really shown signs of deterioration? I don't see it... he's had issues staying healthy throughout his career in general, but that has little to do with age and more to do with how he plays the position. He's not Brady or Manning-like in that he avoids getting hit at all costs and just goes down when a guy gets two hands on them (heck, Manning goes down when a guy lays a finger on him half the time), he will take hits and will try to get those big guys to bounce off of him in an attempt to extend the play. So, again, the whole "mortgaging the future" thing doesn't work there unless you're simply speculating that McNabb won't last 3 or more years.

That doesn't even factor in the risk of a 2nd round pick being a bust or failing to produce as expected. We got a sure-thing in McNabb at the most important spot on the field, and most likely it'll be that way for at least another 2-3 years... I just don't see where the future got so destroyed here.

As for the other vets we brought in, I think it's best to look at Galloway as a nice example that can be applied everywhere else. How is Galloway a band-aid, when we were so depleted at WR that he was pretty much our only option? Furthermore, why is it assumed that the young guys behind him were not helped by him being there? Have you measured the value of those guys seeing him work and run routes? Do you consider that worthless? If so, you're extremely naive and narrow-minded. As soon as guys like Banks and Austin started improving in practice, what happened? If you claim that has nothing to do with it and Shanny was just blindly trusting Galloway over the young guys and just had to cut him when he did and is just hoping those guys do better than him, then I really can't help you understand a thing, nor do I want to.

Again, the arguments against bringing in those kind of vets are filled to the brim with speculation that they were brought in to be relied upon for the long haul and were hampering the progress of our young'ns! Hilarious. Could it be that those guys were brought in for temporary benefit to help the young guys grow as well as provide a steady presence on the field during game day that defense's have to respect and simply can't go after due to their knowledge? Wouldn't their one-year contracts that are extremely easy to void for the team at any time tell you that is exactly what is happening?

I don't get it at all. Shanahan and Allen have done an incredible job thus far. It's time we acknowledged it as such and stopped whining like little babies about what could've been done different.

You sir...have not only hit the nail on the head...you've drilled it

People are far too caught up in conventional wisdom. People who are making a stinker about it are those that ::

1) Never liked the McNabb trade....and will pick at anything to say it was bad without giving it a chance or considering that maybe...just maybe there's a big picture

2) Thinks that having a good team is as easy as just getting younger. So much for Campbell, Devin Thomas, etc. etc. etc.

We have the talent on defense, we just need to switch back to a 4-3. As I mentioned in a post right before yours, teams laid a foundation before drafting their franchise Qbs. Shanahan, with all his flaws is trying to fix the culture of the team 1st, while looking forward towards the future. Kyle will probably take over some day, and McNabb and Shanahan are both hungry for a Championship. The funny thing is the Eagles actually built AROUND McNabb before letting him go. They had stability at the Quarterback position and when they felt it was time, they did

The Redskins have lacked stability at the QB and Coaching position. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why we can't get O-linemen, an RB, a receiver....and continue to solidify within the next 2-3 years all while competing. Our team has been close in every game, there's no reason to believe that in the next year or two we can't go deep into the playoffs and even further considering we have stability on offense.

[KDawg]

You sir...have not only hit the nail on the head...you've drilled it

Yes, we've been so good doing it this way for the last decade, I can see why we'd want to continue the same approach...

People are far too caught up in conventional wisdom.

I'd argue that those believe that you can do both are too caught up in conventional wisdom. When there was no cap, you could build the way the Skins have been since 2000. In fact, we did. And we won. The salary cap changed the ability to do that.

1) Never liked the McNabb trade....and will pick at anything to say it was bad without giving it a chance or considering that maybe...just maybe there's a big picture

I'm not a hater and I'm not a lover. He was an upgrade, sure, but not a one person difference maker some believe it to be. So, that said, what's the bigger picture with McNabb?

2) Thinks that having a good team is as easy as just getting younger. So much for Campbell, Devin Thomas, etc. etc. etc.

It's as easy as getting younger... To a point. We need to get younger because this team isnt competitive (read: playoff calibur) now and by the time we are alot of the components on this team won't be a part of it any longer. Getting younger gives us an opportunity to grow over the next few years. I don't think anyone who wanted to get younger believed we'd be competing for a Super Bowl in the next year or two.

We have the talent on defense, we just need to switch back to a 4-3.

Erm. What makes you think we're going to do that? For a 3-4, we do NOT have talent on defense. And we're running a 3-4.

As I mentioned in a post right before yours, teams laid a foundation before drafting their franchise Qbs. Shanahan, with all his flaws is trying to fix the culture of the team 1st, while looking forward towards the future. Kyle will probably take over some day, and McNabb and Shanahan are both hungry for a Championship. The funny thing is the Eagles actually built AROUND McNabb before letting him go. They had stability at the Quarterback position and when they felt it was time, they did

And McNabb never won a ring with a team that built around him. What makes anyone believe he will here? I'm not saying he can't, but I'm not sure why people have so much confidence.

The Redskins have lacked stability at the QB and Coaching position. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why we can't get O-linemen, an RB, a receiver....and continue to solidify within the next 2-3 years all while competing. Our team has been close in every game, there's no reason to believe that in the next year or two we can't go deep into the playoffs and even further considering we have stability on offense.

I've said it several times... If we were younger and competing I'd be better with it... But being this old and competing lowers out draft pick and we open more holes due to age. It's a problem.

[Frostx08]

Yes, we've been so good doing it this way for the last decade, I can see why we'd want to continue the same approach...

I'd argue that those believe that you can do both are too caught up in conventional wisdom. When there was no cap, you could build the way the Skins have been since 2000. In fact, we did. And we won. The salary cap changed the ability to do that.

I'm not a hater and I'm not a lover. He was an upgrade, sure, but not a one person difference maker some believe it to be. So, that said, what's the bigger picture with McNabb?

It's as easy as getting younger... To a point. We need to get younger because this team isnt competitive (read: playoff calibur) now and by the time we are alot of the components on this team won't be a part of it any longer. Getting younger gives us an opportunity to grow over the next few years. I don't think anyone who wanted to get younger believed we'd be competing for a Super Bowl in the next year or two.

Erm. What makes you think we're going to do that? For a 3-4, we do NOT have talent on defense. And we're running a 3-4.

And McNabb never won a ring with a team that built around him. What makes anyone believe he will here? I'm not saying he can't, but I'm not sure why people have so much confidence.

I've said it several times... If we were younger and competing I'd be better with it... But being this old and competing lowers out draft pick and we open more holes due to age. It's a problem.

Doing it that way for the past decade huh? I didn't know that Jason Campbell was a vet....nor did I know that Devin Thomas and others were in their 30s as well :-/

Conventional wisdom says "Go younger, draft a Qb, etc. etc. etc.". And that's great. But based on what I'm reading...again many people fail to realize that you don't have to do a complete overhaul to make a change. There are many different philosophies, and there's not just one right one, despite what many have been pushing

There's nothing wrong with "getting younger". But how does getting younger completely guarantee smooth sailing? What exactly is wrong with a nice mix of veteran leadership...free agency...and drafting Young players which we CAN do within the next few seasons??? And players don't necessarily stay with teams for more than 5-6 years...so you don't need a 22-23 year old in every spot

And I'd also ask for you to not put words in my mouth. I never said he was an immediate fix...I've mentioned O-line on here several times. The "bigger picture" with McNabb is to bring leadership and stability to a position that's been a revolving door for well over a decade. McNabb is a PROVEN Qb...with him you can know the position is solidified while you work on building other positions. You can lay a foundation so that when you do get the right Young Quarterback to take over, you know you've put him in the BEST position to succeed. And you can do that while gaining respectability. Changing the culture of a team is a very underrated need

Orakpo, Fletcher, Deangelo Hall...several of our players on defense are talented. Read what I said again..if we switch back to a 4-3 we would be solid. Our defense has the talent...they've just been misused.

And @ the latter statement. Yea because it's always been that simple. In McNabb's prime, how exactly did they build around him properly? The Eagles did horribly in their talent evaluation of Pinkston and Freddie Mitchell...and adding James Thrash wasn't a vote of confidence either. Most young Qbs are given a running game to GROW...McNabb didn't have that then. So what exactly is your point? Are you implying that the moment he got respectable weapons late in his career, he was supposed to just win a Super Bowl instantly? How many Qbs have weapons for most of their career but don't have any rings...or only have one? If they have a running game and weapons for all those years, shouldn't they be winning almost every year?

If we build a foundation...do smart pickups through free agency, drafts, and trades...then we can probably get to the playoffs. And if we get to the playoffs...ANYONE can win at that point. So again...what's your point?

[Oldfan]

.. The "bigger picture" with McNabb is to bring leadership and stability to a position that's been a revolving door for well over a decade. McNabb is a PROVEN Qb...with him you can know the position is solidified while you work on building other positions. You can lay a foundation so that when you do get the right Young Quarterback to take over, you know you've put him in the BEST position to succeed. And you can do that while gaining respectability. Changing the culture of a team is a very underrated need...

"leadership"

"stability"

"lay a foundation"

"respectability"

"changing the culture"

Can you define what any of those terms means? Don't you realize that when you have to resort to fuzzy claims like these that your argument is obviously weak?

[Mahons21]

"leadership"

"stability"

"lay a foundation"

"respectability"

"changing the culture"

Can you define what any of those terms means? Don't you realize that when you have to resort to fuzzy claims like these that your argument is weak?

It's not weak at all, just because something cannot be measured doesn't mean it doesn't have a HUGE impact.

Have you never heard an NFL commentator talk about the losing culture of a given team? and how until the culture at so and sos park is changed they will never have a winning team?

Have you never heard of an NFL commentator or hell even Chris Cooley, talk about lack of leadership on a team, and how that can bring a team down?

Frost made many relevant points that many people agree with. Everyone knew you were going to shut it down, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because you say so.

You couldn't measure the emotional impact the death of Taylor had on this team, but it was visible and that was a memorable ride to the playoffs. Should this emotion not be considered a huge factor in our playoff run, because it cannot be measured?

[themurf]

People are far too caught up in conventional wisdom. People who are making a stinker about it are those that ::

2) Thinks that having a good team is as easy as just getting younger. So much for Campbell, Devin Thomas, etc. etc. etc.

Your logic is so flawed that it's baffling. Jason Campbell and Devin Thomas didn't work out in D.C., so therefore we shouldn't go for younger players? I mean, is that really what you're selling here?

I know what I'm getting with a team of 30-35 year olds. Injuries and decreased production. I'm seeing plenty of that now, and honestly, I've seen more than enough over the last 20 years. I'd rather have Perry Riley in the lineup taking his lump and learning the NFL game on the fly than another 34-year-old like Chris Draft. Why? Because at least the team can evaluate whether or not he belongs in the NFL. It's why I'd rather see the team focus more of the gameplan on two tight end sets rather than trotting out Joey Galloway or Roydell Williams. You can say all you want about neither Chris Cooley or Fred Davis being all that great at blocking, but really, no one on the offense is very good at blocking right now. At least Cooley and Davis give you a chance to pick up yards after the catch if Donovan McNabb can get the ball to them before getting killed by another pass rusher.

Christ, by your logic, a guy like Brandon Banks would have been deemed a failure after his two preseason fumbles. He would have been let go that first time and never thought about again, meaning you wouldn't have discovered he's such a dynamic playmaker until another team game him a fair chance. This is why fans shouldn't play fantasy football. It makes them think they know something about building a team. I'm not saying I should be on a team's payroll because I'm smarter than anyone else. I just stick with the philosophy that if two players have the same skill set and abilities, I'm always going with the younger one.

At least with younger teams there's hope. With older teams like we've got now, there is only a realization that the bulk of your players are will never be as good as they once were.

[authentic]

Your logic is so flawed that it's baffling. Jason Campbell and Devin Thomas didn't work out in D.C., so therefore we shouldn't go for younger players? I mean, is that really what you're selling here?

I know what I'm getting with a team of 30-35 year olds. Injuries and decreased production. I'm seeing plenty of that now, and honestly, I've seen more than enough over the last 20 years. I'd rather have Perry Riley in the lineup taking his lump and learning the NFL game on the fly than another 34-year-old like Chris Draft. Why? Because at least the team can evaluate whether or not he belongs in the NFL. It's why I'd rather see the team focus more of the gameplan on two tight end sets rather than trotting out Joey Galloway or Roydell Williams. You can say all you want about neither Chris Cooley or Fred Davis being all that great at blocking, but really, no one on the offense is very good at blocking right now. At least Cooley and Davis give you a chance to pick up yards after the catch if Donovan McNabb can get the ball to them before getting killed by another pass rusher.

Christ, by your logic, a guy like Brandon Banks would have been deemed a failure after his two preseason fumbles. He would have been let go that first time and never thought about again, meaning you wouldn't have discovered he's such a dynamic playmaker until another team game him a fair chance. This is why fans shouldn't play fantasy football. It makes them think they know something about building a team. I'm not saying I should be on a team's payroll because I'm smarter than anyone else. I just stick with the philosophy that if two players have the same skill set and abilities, I'm always going with the younger one.

At least with younger teams there's hope. With older teams like we've got now, there is only a realization that the bulk of your players are will never be as good as they once were.

Can't say that i disagree with anything said here^^. Makes sense.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: It's not weak at all, just because something cannot be measured doesn't mean it doesn't have a HUGE impact.

Who said anything about measuring it? I asked the poster to define his terms in the context that they were used so we have some idea of what he's talking about. Maybe you'd like to give it a try.

Have you never heard an NFL commentator talk about the losing culture of a given team? and how until the culture at so and sos park is changed they will never have a winning team?

Sure. I've heard commentators fill dead air space with lots of BS.

Have you never heard of an NFL commentator or hell even Chris Cooley, talk about lack of leadership on a team, and how that can bring a team down?

Sure. I've heard players and coaches offering all sorts of blather when they don't know what the problems are or they don't want to be truthful about placing blame.

Frost made many relevant points that many people agree with. Everyone knew you were going to shut it down, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist because you say so.

Frost made points that would ONLY be acceptable to those who already agree with him. If those terms have meaning in this context, you should be able to define them. I won't hold my breath waiting for anyone to do it, though.

You couldn't measure the emotional impact the death of Taylor had on this team, but it was visible and that was a memorable ride to the playoffs. Should this emotion not be considered a huge factor.

However, the facts are that the Skins played worse after the death of Taylor until Todd Collins entered the Bears game after Jason went down. It was Collins' expertise with the Al Saunders offense that propelled the run to Seattle. I know these mundane Football explanations don't provoke the imagination like the Taylor explanation, but this is the NFL not Hollywood.

[addicted]

Most of us aren't saying that you SHOULDN'T use high draft picks on OL.

Just that this year, where we'll be picking, there won't be OL worth taking. You HAVE to get real talent and great value out of that first rounder. You can't reach.

This is one of the worst arguements to use when discussing the draft but this is the most common excuse thrown out there.

Let's be real, is the NFL draft ever going to end up with the overall best player going number one, then the second best player going number 2, and the third best player number 3 etc all the way down to the worst player being selected last? Or is the NFL draft forever going to be dominated by the lying, cheating, sports agents who use guys like Mel Kiper like a 2 dollar whore and pimp the players that these agents want us to be interested in all the while the fans who frankly don't know better buy the line of crap as if it's the truth? The fact of the matter is that a guy like Aaron Rogers doesn't fall to the late first round, a guy like Orakpo goes after many other players go before him, and a guy like Tom Brady doesn't go in the 6th round if this were true,

To expect that every player drafted where they are "projected" doesn't mean that player will fit the needs of the team that drafts in that position at all or is a good pick at that position they are drafted. Why do so many teams ignore need and go for what the experts who are wrong far more often then they are right think? If our team needs a Center and some idiot draftnik thinks the best Center should go in the second round should we take a WR in the first just because he is supposed to be more talented even though we have no guarentee that the Center we want will be there in the second? Hell no. The whole arguement about draft picks and value changes per team. The Jets couldn't use a guy like Danny Woodhead but on the Patriots the guys a star, not every team has the same needs or are constructed the same way. There is no cookie cutter for draft picks worth to a team that you or I can use. We can simply identify the needs we have and adjust to that if we want to see things turn around. Or we could just say screw it and once again forget to improve the offensive line and draft a Corner or some other stupid position that isn't going to help us long term or short term like drafting a great offensive line would.

The whole arguement that draft picks have worth, that certain players are first round talent vs second round talent is bullspit. What you see are the same old team knowing what they need and how to identify the players who fit the mold of what they want to do, and drafting well year after year after year all the while the dogs of the league run around chasing an imaginary "this guy would help us alot but he's not first round talent so pass" idea. When the draft becomes a trustable science for thinking like that let me know. Until then I'm going to continue to be pissed off that the teams who understand this always draft well and wonder why in the hell won't the Redskins wake up?

[SMOSS89]

This is fun. We're having fun.