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

[TSO]

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...

I think it's laughable that you, along with Oldfan and murf, would make such a grand claim as the reason for our mediocrity being our "dual" approach. You guys should all know better! Actually, with Gibbs, we did little of "both" and were bit of extremists when it came to trading draft picks. So, no, it wasn't a measured approach. Furthermore, the draft picks we'd trade away were for guys that either hadn't produced much or were guys way past their prime, who were then given 5 year contracts! What I've seen from Bruce and Mike thus far show an incredibly balanced approach, where if we do bring in vets we sign them to one-year deals or deals we could easily walk away from if they don't produce.

With McNabb, for instance, we got a guy who has produced a ton and still has a bunch of years left. I haven't seen a single proof that McNabb's best years are behind him in his play, have you? Yes, he's still inconsistent and inaccurate at times, but he's always been that. Exactly what makes anyone think McNabb isn't a guy here for the long-term? If you don't think 3-4 years isn't long-term, or isn't enough to groom a replacement QB while he gives us a chance in every game, exactly what are you thinking, frankly?

Under Zorn, we actually went the opposite route by piling up draft picks and using them all. Well, guess what happened? We pretty much missed on almost every single one of them (Malcolm Kelly is still an exciting prospect to me, though). :doh:

Granted, I totally understand the value of stockpiling draft picks and getting younger, so I understand where you guys are coming from, but to assume that it's the only approach and the only way is foolish. To further assume that isn't what both Allen/Shanahan want is also foolish. The trading of picks that occurred this year could be, more than anything, an adverse effect of the uncapped season restrictions that came into play, and not much else. Right? Shanahan has said he's not in the business of trading picks, and he's shown that in Denver.

Basically, our problems have nothing to do with the truth that you can have a measured approach and both "win now" while "rebuilding". The problem is we've simply missed on our opportunities time and time again. Guys were brought in for big payday's and unfortunately got lazy because of it, and that was a big reason for why we have the type of losing culture we're trying to be done with. It simply was a case where whatever we tried, didn't work. We draft a bunch of players, most of them end up being busts. We bring in high-profile Free Agents, they don't fit in like they did on their previous teams. We trade a pick for a Jason Taylor, then don't use him correctly. Heck, Blache was said to have not even wanted him! That has nothing to do with our approach or philosophy, and more to do with poor personnel decisions and bad communication between FO and coaches.

What we've done thus far under Allen/Shanahan has been totally different. The vets we brought in were almost exclusively signed to one year deals, and if not, weren't signed to deals that would force us to keep them down the road due to their cap hits. We brought in as many young guys as we could minus the draft picks we gave up for a solid QB and a solid RT, both the kind of players at positions that you just don't find anywhere in the draft or in Free Agency. It's not like we did the same for a WR, RB or a Safety, which we've done in the past. QB and T are both positions of high value in the NFL, and teams keep guys that are good at those positions... so if you don't have those kind of guys and you know you aren't going to be able to get everything you need there from the draft, why not trade a couple picks for them?

So what about any of the vets tell you we are hurting our future by keeping them? Exactly which one of said vets has a contract we can't void tomorrow, or at the end of the season with no affect to the team?

What I'm getting here from you three mainly is that you guys think even having these vets at the cost of playing time for the young'ns is so detrimental to their progress that it's costing us moving forward. I think that's outrageously naive, and doesn't take into account the fact that those young guys are gaining valuable insight just by being under those vets and seeing how they work in the NFL, how they run routes, block linemen, practice, study, etc... and that as soon as they start to get it our coaches have no problems putting them in. Are the young guys not getting a chance? Can anyone really say that without falling into gross speculation?

It's like those who complained about us cutting Devin saying "Mike has an agenda against him" all the while ignoring the fact that Mike permitted Armstrong to take Galloway's no. 2 spot only a few games into the season.

I just don't see how you guys are trying to make what Shanny/Allen have done anything remotely close to mortgaging the future. The only thing you can really point to is that 2nd rounder for McNabb, which would've had the highest probability of being a productive player for us for a longer time. Is that really so awful? If you think so, that must mean you have no confidence in McNabb lasting. I do. I guess we'll just have to see.

[addicted]

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.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, to me the answer this team needs more then anything is a rebirth of the Hogs and a dominate Offensive Line. The position to draft is offensive lineman. If this were my team I'd spend every single damn pick this year on linemen until I felt like I had an NFL caliber line in place for years to come. And you don't simply draft "best player availible" to me that's just feeding into the college corrupution that exists today. Draft for need and you will address the needs you have, draft based off some players agent grade and you'll continue to have the same old problems you have year after year like we do. Of course I don't expect that to be a popular idea but many times the unpopular suggestion is not listened to. How many games did we win going best player availible when we drafted Rod Gardner, Patrick Ramsey, Carlos Rogers, Jason Campbell, and Sean Taylor (RIP) because they were the best player availible and wish every year we had an NFL caliber offensive line?

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.

Tell that to the Rams this year. It's only impossible if you say so. And the stability factor for those teams demonstrates that the drafts are going with a plan in mind. In today's NFL you don't have 10 years to build a winner so you make a plan and execute it. Its much more difficult to plan ahead when all you go with it "best availible". It's much easier to identify needs then draft for filling that need. There is a quick fix, the problem is if the driver doesn't know which way to go then you'll never get there and randomly picking players with talent is exactly that. It's random. Leave the sucking to the other teams, make a plan and go for it,.You dont do that simply grabing best availible.

[TSO]

This is fun. We're having fun.

I was thinking the same thing. One thing murf can do right is get the top guns in ES together to have a nice discussion about Redskins football. One thing. :pfft:

[SMOSS89]

I was thinking the same thing. One thing murf can do right is get the top guns in ES together to have a nice discussion about Redskins football. One thing. :pfft:

I wish I was a 'top gun', but yeah, this is a nice little discussion we're havin here

[Mahons21]

I wish I was a 'top gun', but yeah, this is a nice little discussion we're havin here

Hah you and me both. Great discussion here though, love seeing this many respected members going back and forth on how to build a team. Keep it up guys.

OLDFAN, I spent about an hour writing a response for you, submitted it, didn't type in my password, came back to my computer and hit the back button. My post was no more... In time though you will have it.

A few quick tid bits

a.) I assume you don't want webster's definition of those terms, rather you would like them put into context with a football program or more specifically the QB position, correct?

b.) I don't discount the large contribution Collins made, but I do believe it was a team effort. Portis was averaging 125 total ypg.. Defense was creating turnovers. Don't forget Todd fumbled the ball his first possession in that Bears game, had springs not picked them off and taken it down to the 20 with 1minute to go in the hallf, that game very well may have had a different outcome.

Definitions on the way though.

[TSO]

By the way, a big thanks to murf, Oldfan, KDawg, SMOSS89, Mahons, addicted, authentic, Longshot, Frost and whoever else I missed (sorry, I didn't go through every post) for making this thread one of the only ones that made me feel good enough to feel like posting again... ES lives!

[konga2145]

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.

People keep talking Mcnabb. It's the running game hurting us and it don't look like theres anyone here now that's going to be a future back, not with line anyway. We need Offensive linemen and running backs, until then Mcnabb will never do this on his own, he never has.

[bulldog]

this is still a very poor offensive line.

one high draft pick does not solidify the unit by himself, especially as LT is the hardest position to come in and play right away.

[SMOSS89]

If the Redskins finish with a ...let's say, a top 15 draft pick.

What do you do? Draft another tackle? You can't justify drafting a right tackle at that spot.

Draft a guard? Center? Can't justify that with a top 15 pick.

That's where losing the 3rd/4th rounders from the McNabb and Brown trades hurts. But I do believe they'll do whatever they can to recoup those picks, because rounds 2-4 is where they can really make some hay on the interior of the line.

And again, Shanahan did a fairly decent job finding guys who were UNDRAFTED who came in and contributed this year. Here's to hoping he does it again in 2011 (if there is a season).

---------- Post added December-2nd-2010 at 08:58 PM ----------

By the way, a big thanks to murf, Oldfan, SMOSS89, Mahons, addicted, authentic, Longshot, Frost and whoever else I missed (sorry, I didn't go through every post) for making this thread one of the only ones that made me feel good enough to feel like posting again... ES lives!

Your welcome

[Skinsinparadise]

Longshot you are right Dockery was a third rounder too though that was eons ago.

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.

IMO your approach here is too simplistic and overreacting to our mistakes. Right now it looks like we are on track for first rounder towards the middle to high end of the draft. If we don't have a guard, center or RT (arguably right now we need an interior lineman) rated that high, and you need to be a real special guard or for that matter C or RT to be a high to middle first rounder and we got another player rated higher, lets say a WR, LB, NT, it makes no sense to me to go o line with the first round. The Giants for example have ROUTINELY used their 2nd thru 4th rounders on lineman as opposed to first rounders. Instead of the Giants drafting lets say Beatty in the first round, they take him in the 2nd, and took Hakeem Nicks in the first. The Patriots don't take many O lineman in the first round. What's the point of taking an o lineman in the first round to simply overcompensate from past mistakes? Take the best player available, if that happens to be an o lineman great, if not there are other rounds in this draft besides the first -- and no our team hasn't habitually used those picks on lineman.

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

How can you grade that draft so quickly? First of all, they had like zero picks. Vinny traded away the 3rd and 6th. and shanny traded the 2nd. Trent looks good as a first rounder. Reilly is playing behind Fletcher so we don't know about him yet. some like Austin as the 7th rounder. Not bad working the undrafted poool. Banks undrafted FA, Armstrong undrafted FA, Williams undrafted FA. Much easier to have stellar drafts when you have actual picks to use. I am not going to give ANY draft picker a hard time for their 6th rounder not making it. The big rounds are 1st, 2nd 3rd. And we didnt have a 2nd or third. Late round guys are long shots. If we keep crying about stuff like Vinny muffing the 6th rounder on Derrick Frost, to me that's silly stuff. It's sad that we are dependent on the 6th rounders making it, those players are long shots. We have to start building our team by holding the 2nd-4th rounders. And every once in a blue moon score with a late rounder. That's how it works for most teams.

Shanny hasn't actually been a blithering idiot especially in later years with the draft. Who the heck found Peyton Hillis in the 7th round? Brandon Marshall in the 4th? Royal, Sheffler, Portis -- none of whom were first rounders. Cutler, Clady. Defense is a different story but Shanny seems to have an eye for offense talent.

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

Again you got the wrong premise so the conclusion doesn't make sense unless you misunderstood my point. My point is don't force a first round pick for an O lineman if you don't have one graded high. Consider your 2nd rounder which is the more common round that teams draft elite INTERIOR O lineman. To your point how has that worked for us thus far, implies we have been regularly using our 2nd rounders on interior lineman. And its simply not true. If I recall the last time we used a 2nd rounder an an O lineman was for Jon Jansen. That was in the PRIOR DECADE. Good teams from what I've noticed sometimes do draft their LT in their first round, but most tend to take the other positions on the O line in the 2nd-4th round. and no that hasn't been something we've tried to do and failed. We haven't tried it. We are no longer playing in the Jon Jansen/Norv Turner regime.

[bulldog]

justify? why not?

The Steelers spent their #1 pick this past year on a center.

Didn't the Seahawks take Steve Hutchinson with their #1 high up one year as well?

Now with the holes on this roster I agree that if there are other players that grade out higher or at even pace then we have to consider other positions.

But if a center or guard is the most highly rated player when the Redskins select, there is no reason we shouldn't necessarily pull the trigger.

I would prefer to see the team get a WR and RB in free agency.

[TheLongshot]

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, to me the answer this team needs more then anything is a rebirth of the Hogs and a dominate Offensive Line. The position to draft is offensive lineman. If this were my team I'd spend every single damn pick this year on linemen until I felt like I had an NFL caliber line in place for years to come. And you don't simply draft "best player availible" to me that's just feeding into the college corrupution that exists today. Draft for need and you will address the needs you have, draft based off some players agent grade and you'll continue to have the same old problems you have year after year like we do. Of course I don't expect that to be a popular idea but many times the unpopular suggestion is not listened to. How many games did we win going best player availible when we drafted Rod Gardner, Patrick Ramsey, Carlos Rogers, Jason Campbell, and Sean Taylor (RIP) because they were the best player availible and wish every year we had an NFL caliber offensive line?

You seem to have a twisted idea about what BPA actually means. Teams don't decide the best player from "draft experts" or hype from agents or anyone else. It is scouting reports, game film, interviews and workouts. The lists teams come up with aren't likely to match any "draft expert"'s list. That is why I don't think much of players rising or falling in the draft, since those ratings are pretty artificial.

Tell that to the Rams this year. It's only impossible if you say so.

Oh please. A draft is more than just one player and you know that. Will Saffold be able to lock down the RT position? Will Gilyard become a reliable target for Bradford? Even Bradford, who is having a darn good year, isn't guaranteed to continue to grow and perform.

And the stability factor for those teams demonstrates that the drafts are going with a plan in mind. In today's NFL you don't have 10 years to build a winner so you make a plan and execute it. Its much more difficult to plan ahead when all you go with it "best availible". It's much easier to identify needs then draft for filling that need. There is a quick fix, the problem is if the driver doesn't know which way to go then you'll never get there and randomly picking players with talent is exactly that. It's random. Leave the sucking to the other teams, make a plan and go for it,.You dont do that simply grabing best availible.

Sure you need a plan, but the draft isn't a grocery store where you can bring your shopping list and get everything you need. Good teams take what the draft gives them and move around when appropriate and able. Not all players in the draft are going to be solutions to our problems.

Fortunately, the draft isn't the only way to get players. There are FAs and trades. The OL problems are not going to be solved in the draft alone.

[KDawg]

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 :-/

Come on. Obviously there were some young guys. Just as there is now. Did we not sign Deion Sanders? Bruce Smith? Jeff George? Jason Taylor? TJ Duckett? Joey Galloway? Donovan McNabb? Vonnie Holliday? I could keep going but I won't. You almost definitely missed the point there... Seemingly on purpose, because I don't think you're a dumb person in the least.

Conventional wisdom says "Go younger, draft a Qb, etc. etc. etc."

Not with this team it doesn't. We've never done it.

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

Complete? No. 3/4 of the roster? Yes. Why? Because our offensive talent was miserable. And defensively we don't have guys who fit the bonehead scheme we're employing.

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

No, you don't. But you also don't want 30+ year olds occupying your positions when you're not going to be a credible threat for a few seasons. What's wrong with it is that's the approach we've been using... And failing at.

And I'd also ask for you to not put words in my mouth. I never said he was an immediate fix

I never said you did. In fact, quote me if you say I did. I said "people" think the Donovan McNabb trade made us a contender. Your name never came up.

Orakpo, Fletcher, Deangelo Hall...several of our players on defense are talented.

Rak is decent as an outside backer and great as a pass rusher. Fletcher is getting older and not as effective in the 3-4 as he would be in a 4-3. Hall is a playmaker but not a great cover guy. Three guys plus Landry. That's all the talent we have on defense. That's "several"?

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.

I read what you said. You didn't read what I said. We're running the 3-4 currently. Saying "if" won't work. When this nightmare of a 2-gap 3-4 ends, I'll be glad to revisit the "if" we switch back conversation.

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?

Westbrook and an offensive line isn't building around the guy? And you're expecting us to virtually replace every offensive weapon, get them to click and be a contender as well as revamp the defense all while McNabb is still a serviceable quarterback? Bless you for your optimism.

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?

If the Rams release Bradford, the Titans and VIkings release Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson, the Texans and Cards trade us Johnson and Fitz for a 7th rounder each, and we take the Patriots offensive line for a bag of potato chips, we could make the playoffs. What's your point?

I think it's laughable that you, along with Oldfan and murf, would make such a grand claim as the reason for our mediocrity being our "dual" approach. You guys should all know better! Actually, with Gibbs, we did little of "both" and were bit of extremists when it came to trading draft picks. So, no, it wasn't a measured approach. Furthermore, the draft picks we'd trade away were for guys that either hadn't produced much or were guys way past their prime, who were then given 5 year contracts! What I've seen from Bruce and Mike thus far show an incredibly balanced approach, where if we do bring in vets we sign them to one-year deals or deals we could easily walk away from if they don't produce.

Yes, that's encouraging. And it's been noted.

With McNabb, for instance, we got a guy who has produced a ton and still has a bunch of years left.

This is debateable. I'm not sure how long he's got left. So far, he's not looking great in year one in a Redskin uniform. I'm willing to see what he has through year two, but if there's not improvement, he's not going to be a part of the solution. But, he gets another year for sure.

I haven't seen a single proof that McNabb's best years are behind him in his play, have you?

No. I can't know that for sure. His play thus far suggests they may be, though.

Yes, he's still inconsistent and inaccurate at times, but he's always been that. Exactly what makes anyone think McNabb isn't a guy here for the long-term? If you don't think 3-4 years isn't long-term, or isn't enough to groom a replacement QB while he gives us a chance in every game, exactly what are you thinking, frankly?

I never said 3-4 years wasn't long term

He may be here long term, but that doesn't mean he's going to be effective.

Under Zorn, we actually went the opposite route by piling up draft picks and using them all. Well, guess what happened? We pretty much missed on almost every single one of them (Malcolm Kelly is still an exciting prospect to me, though). :doh:

Why do people bring up Zorn/Cerrato? They're gone. And their talent evaluations weren't something anyone is saying they were great at. Had we piled up picks with someone halfway competent running the draft we would have had different results.

Granted, I totally understand the value of stockpiling draft picks and getting younger, so I understand where you guys are coming from, but to assume that it's the only approach and the only way is foolish.

To assume that any of us believe it's the only way is foolish, but then again, you did call out three people who have some knowledge and tell us we should "know better" essentially, to disagree with you. We've tried the vets/young guys approach. We've tried the vets approach. They didn't work. Why not try to blow it up? I still haven't seen a good argument against it. Because we may stink for a few years? What else is new?

Shanahan has said he's not in the business of trading picks, and he's shown that in Denver.

Talk is cheap. Show me. Denver means squat to me. So far in DC, he's trading picks. He gets a free pass to do it differently. He probably shouldn't be fully judged in year one. But, I'll believe this when I see it. And man I hope I see it.

Guys were brought in for big payday's and unfortunately got lazy because of it, and that was a big reason for why we have the type of losing culture we're trying to be done with.

You don't think that has anything to do with the approach of vets (and when I say vets, I mean old dudes) + young guys = winner?

It simply was a case where whatever we tried, didn't work. We draft a bunch of players, most of them end up being busts. We bring in high-profile Free Agents, they don't fit in like they did on their previous teams.

And that's shocking? They didn't fit our schemes. Jason Taylor didn't fit at all. Deion and Bruce probably weren't as bad as people think they were, but a lot of the guys we attempted to bring in did not fit our schemes. It shouldn't have been shocking they didn't pan out.

We trade a pick for a Jason Taylor, then don't use him correctly.

Coach/GM error.

Heck, Blache was said to have not even wanted him! That has nothing to do with our approach or philosophy, and more to do with poor personnel decisions and bad communication between FO and coaches.

That's a philosophy. Sign big names and hope it works. It sells jerseys and tickets, so why not? How does is this NOT an approach or philosophy? Sign old guy who doesn't fit because he put up good numbers in a different system. I agree, though, that it is AWFUL personnel and communication. I guess it didn't help that Vinny had Zorn's balls in a glass jar on his desk, either. But that was our owner allowing Cerrato to let that happen. I'm hoping Snyder turned the corner, but again, show me. And thus far, I'm pleased with at least that much.

minus the draft picks we gave up for a solid QB and a solid RT, both the kind of players at positions that you just don't find anywhere in the draft or in Free Agency.

Solid? Neither has proven to be solid. McNabb is ranked in the bottom 1/4 of the league as a QB and Brown can't stay healthy. Can they turn it around? Sure. But they aren't doing so well right now.

So what about any of the vets tell you we are hurting our future by keeping them? Exactly which one of said vets has a contract we can't void tomorrow, or at the end of the season with no affect to the team?

Our defense is older than dirt itself. We need to replace nearly everything on it to run the 3-4. Seriously. That doesn't effect the team?

What I'm getting here from you three mainly is that you guys think even having these vets at the cost of playing time for the young'ns is so detrimental to their progress that it's costing us moving forward. I think that's outrageously naive

I think that you believe that that's what I'm saying is naive. We don't have anyone behind a lot of these guys. Who's our backup QB? Who's our backup NT? DEs? MLBs? OLBs? Not to mention some of these young guys are fillers, which is fine, but we don't have a starting caliber FS, LG, C, RG, #3 receiver, RB.

Obviously as a team that needs to progress we have holes. But we have a ton of them. Why masquerade as being a decent team? Why not take our lumps and see what happens? And for the record, getting younger may include signing 27, 28, 29 year olds. That would make us a ton younger. It's not just 22-23 year olds that help that. We're extremely old.

Are the young guys not getting a chance? Can anyone really say that without falling into gross speculation?

Casey Rabach.

I think that's all I need to say right now. Get him the **** out. Our entire DL is old as dirt. Riley isn't playing much on defense. Austin just got in so I'll assume the best there. Kevin Barnes? That's about all the youth we have and a lot of them aren't being put on the field consistently.

Banks is, for sure, but we came close to screwing the pooch on him at the start of the season too.

Our RBs are getting a chance, which I am thankful for.

It's like those who complained about us cutting Devin saying "Mike has an agenda against him" all the while ignoring the fact that Mike permitted Armstrong to take Galloway's no. 2 spot only a few games into the season.

Okay. This wasn't me. But you aren't saying it was. So I'll not comment here other than to say that.

I just don't see how you guys are trying to make what Shanny/Allen have done anything remotely close to mortgaging the future.

I don't know that I necessarily said it was mortgaging the future... But I will say it all looks familiar. But, again, it could take an entirely different form. I'm hoping that occurs... But until I see it, it's all the same.

The only thing you can really point to is that 2nd rounder for McNabb, which would've had the highest probability of being a productive player for us for a longer time. Is that really so awful? If you think so, that must mean you have no confidence in McNabb lasting. I do. I guess we'll just have to see.

Highest probabily versus a 2nd round draft pick at QB? Sure, I guess I can buy that argument. But sometimes you get more from a higher risk option. But yes, we'll see.

[bulldog]

The offensive line is going to take time.

We need FOUR starters to join with Trent Williams.

I don't see any of the current players as future starters.

[TheLongshot]

Vinny traded away the 3rd and 6th.

Lets get this right for the record: the 3rd round pick was used to draft Jarmon. Even Shanahan counted him on this year's ledger.

[SMOSS89]

justify? why not?

The Steelers spent their #1 pick this past year on a center.

Didn't the Seahawks take Steve Hutchinson with their #1 high up one year as well?

Now with the holes on this roster I agree that if there are other players that grade out higher or at even pace then we have to consider other positions.

But if a center or guard is the most highly rated player when the Redskins select, there is no reason we shouldn't necessarily pull the trigger.

I would prefer to see the team get a WR and RB in free agency.

If the draft plays out that way then maybe. But with this team they'll have to look to try and get some 3-4 help in the draft (stud 3-4 lineman and/or linebacker) with their early picks.

Losing out on those middle round picks really hurt in this case when you want to and address both the front 7 AND the O-line in a single draft. They are going to have to wheel and deal to get more picks.

I agree that for the most part the skill guys we could get in free agency, unless someone with ridiculous falls into the Skins lap with their first rounder.

The O line will take years, but they are going to have to get lucky with a few guys and hope they have 1-2 productive starters from a group of guys that, at this point, look like backups.

[Skinsinparadise]

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...

I am not picking on this post per se but wanted to use one that questions our current approach. I am not a blanket fan of Shanahan and I see some of these conversations can devolve into a carte blanche pro versus anti-Shanny discourse, which while fun, is a counter productive conversation if the goal is to truly trade points. Here goes. I am going to give Shanny at least this coming off season before I generalize him trying to have it both ways. Here are some things that throw a big time monkey wrench into the idea that Shanahan is another version of Gibbs 2. Lets start off with Gibbs 2 didn't really change his stripes about personnel from his first go. He has always been a veterans guy, and he has been quoted multiple times about preferring an established player over a draft pick.

Shanahan in Denver for the last 10 years averaged 8.2 picks a draft meaning -- he's ADDING a pick per year on average.

Shanahan was the guy that fleeced Ceratto and Gibbs for picks

I watched Shanahan in a Kelly Johnson interview right before camp and in it he flat out SAID that his histroy has been to use the draft and don't expect to see trades for picks in teh future like you've seen so far

AND WE HAVEN'T including when Vincent Jackson was being shopped, J Reid said in his blog the Skins don't want to give up picks.

Many don't realize that the J. Brown trade was a swap of picks, mostly likely we end up getting a 5th rounder back for him. We got a 4th for JC, and am guessing a 7th for Tyron. We know that D. thomas and a Haynsworth were shopped for picks.

OK so we have a coach with a history of hording and adding picks. We've seen him rip off our own team for picks. We already see some signs of him trying to add picks. He flat out says not to expect more trades for draft picks. I just don't get that when you add all of that up, people don't at least give him the luxury of this off season to see what he does. And yeah I just don't think the D. McNabb trade just blows up any attempt to rebuild. That's ONE trade. They have added picks back, I'd expect them to add more.

And I make nothing of the Bruce Allen statement about wanting to win now. What coach/GM says PUBLICLY its a rebuilding year? Which coach for ANY team can people remember say look this season isn't about winning, this year we want to try some new stuff, new formations, new players. How the heck do you play out a season when you tell your players you aren't about winning now? If you are rebuilding you generally don't declare that publicly for obvious reasons.

[KDawg]

Shanahan in Denver for the last 10 years averaged 8.2 picks a draft meaning -- he's ADDING a pick per year on average.

Shanahan was the guy that fleeced Ceratto and Gibbs for picks

I watched Shanahan in a Kelly Johnson interview right before camp and in it he flat out SAID that his histroy has been to use the draft and don't expect to see trades for picks in teh future like you've seen so far

Well, so far, this statement is inaccurate. He is trading picks for vets right now. But as I said in an above post, I'm willng to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens in the future. But I'll believe its changed when I see that its changed. So far? The same. I'm not judging Shanahan's entire reign as a coach here on this season. But thus far, it's not different.

AND WE HAVEN'T including when Vincent Jackson was being shopped, J Reid said in his blog the Skins don't want to give up picks.

Many don't realize that the J. Brown trade was a swap of picks, mostly likely we end up getting a 5th rounder back for him. We got a 4th for JC, and am guessing a 7th for Tyron. We know that D. thomas and a Haynsworth were shopped for picks.

So, there was one trade where we didn't trade picks and now the zebra changed their stripes? I will say this... I like that we didn't trade picks for Jackson. And I know all about the picks we're getting, and we can certainly package picks or trade down to create more picks or better picks still. But that second rounder for McNabb probably could have netted us something that could have helped us more than McNabb is thus far. I hope McNabb pulls it together and makes me eat those words. But I'm not sold on McNabb as a help in the least. I can't tell you how much I hope a fixed offensive line makes McNabb play better. Logic says it has to. I've learned that the Redskins defy logic. I don't often hope I'm wrong... But I hope I'm wrong.

And I make nothing of the Bruce Allen statement about wanting to win now. What coach/GM says PUBLICLY its a rebuilding year? Which coach for ANY team can people remember say look this season isn't about winning, this year we want to try some new stuff, new formations, new players. How the heck do you play out a season when you tell your players you aren't about winning now? If you are rebuilding you generally don't declare that publicly for obvious reasons.

You don't say anything to the media. The fans don't need to know anything. He's quiet about everything else, why share that information?

And by the way, a lot of coaches tell everyone they have a ton of work to do. Syracuse's Doug Marrone talked to us at a clinic and straight up told us, and the media that was present, "We aren't going to be good for a few years. We have a lot of work to do and a lot of guys that need to buy into a new tradition before it can happen. We're going to aim for success, but it's going to be a work in progress".

Nearly perfect wording. College isn't the pros, but why not come in with that approach?

[darrelgreenie]

BPA at a position of need.

And we without question need OL help.

The reasons to use a 1st round draft pick are simple.

The OL is the worst area on the offense by a longshot.

In the draft there are no certainties but all things be equal it your more likely to succeed with a 1st round player then a late round player.

No one is advocating reaching for a player based on position alone.

But the notion that there won't be 1st round OL talent is false.

[Skinsinparadise]

Well, so far, this statement is inaccurate. He is trading picks for vets right now. But as I said in an above post, I'm willng to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens in the future. But I'll believe its changed when I see that its changed. So far? The same. I'm not judging Shanahan's entire reign as a coach here on this season. But thus far, it's not different.

what part is inaccurate of what you cited? Denver didn't really average more than 7 picks a draft? Shanahan wasn't really the guy that fleeced Cerrato? or Shanahan really didn't tell Kelly Johnson not to expect more draft pick trades for players? You cited that he indeed traded for veterans, but that doesn't refute or make inaccurate a single thing you cited from my post.

So, there was one trade where we didn't trade picks and now the zebra changed their stripes?

OK so the Zebra changing stripes comment implies that either Shanny's whole coaching career should be defined by this one off season otherwise your zebra comment makes no sense. How about the other decade plus on his resume? doesn't him averaging more than the full allotment of draft picks per draft for a whole decade, screw up your theory that this is some habitual pattern with him? The pattern has been the opposite of what you purport.

Weird analogy but what the heck: It would be like me going to a bar and asking a girl out. A pal would say dude that's not like you to ask a girl out at a bar, my response is well it was different, I really dug that girl and was feeling ballsy that night. The 10 years prior I never asked a girl out at the bar in fact I refrained from even going to the bars, and I am telling you now I don't plan to hit the bars in the future, that was an exception. Would people define me as a guy that asks out girls at bars all the time,or say that generally the bar thing is not his gig, he did it that one time because he had reasons.

That's what you got with Shanny. It's not been his pattern. He says it was an exception and won't be his pattern in the future. Yeah he could be full of crap but IMO he deserves at least a chance to show that he walks his talk and again his background backs up the idea that there is a good chance that he will indeed back up his talk.

And by the way, a lot of coaches tell everyone they have a ton of work to do. Syracuse's Doug Marrone talked to us at a clinic and straight up told us, and the media that was present, "We aren't going to be good for a few years. We have a lot of work to do and a lot of guys that need to buy into a new tradition before it can happen. We're going to aim for success, but it's going to be a work in progress".

Nearly perfect wording. College isn't the pros, but why not come in with that approach?

Find me an NFL example of it. Why not say it in the pros? I know I wouldn't be too excited playing for a coach who is telling me he's not interesting in winning now but wants to set the team up long term instead. How do you get fired up to play if you aren't playing for a coach who talks about winning NOW. 2 years from now I could be retired or playing for another team, etc. Now I like the idea of rebuilding but yeah i wouldn't be talking publicly about it. That's about IMO action not rhetoric. It's rare for a team, no matter how bad they are, not to be talking about winning now.

[KDawg]

what part is inaccurate of what you cited? Denver didn't really average more than 7 picks a draft? Shanahan wasn't really the guy that fleeced Cerrato? or Shanahan really didn't tell Kelly Johnson not to expect more draft pick trades for players? You cited that he indeed traded for veterans, but that doesn't refute or make inaccurate a single thing you cited from my post.

The part that we won't trade vets for picks. It's not accurate. We have so far.

OK so the Zebra changing stripes comment implies that either Shanny's whole coaching career should be defined by this one off season otherwise your zebra comment makes no sense. How about the other decade plus on his resume? doesn't him averaging more than the full allotment of draft picks per draft for a whole decade, screw up your theory that this is some habitual pattern with him? The pattern has been the opposite of what you purport.

I didn't say it had anything to do with him. The zebra is this organization.

Find me an NFL example of it. Why not say it in the pros? I know I wouldn't be too excited playing for a coach who is telling me he's not interesting in winning now but wants to set the team up long term instead.

I'm not excited about a coach who says we want to win now when we're in no position to have that opinion.

How do you get fired up to play if you aren't playing for a coach who talks about winning NOW. 2 years from now I could be retired or playing for another team, etc. Now I like the idea of rebuilding but yeah i wouldn't be talking publicly about it. That's about IMO action not rhetoric.

You say you know there's a ton of work that needs to happen before we can be competitive. Finished. Done. No one heard you say you can't be competitive and you never said you couldn't. You don't say you're going to try to win now.

[TSO]

Yes, that's encouraging. And it's been noted.

Good. Now apply this to your understanding of the situation better, lol.

This is debateable. I'm not sure how long he's got left. So far, he's not looking great in year one in a Redskin uniform. I'm willing to see what he has through year two, but if there's not improvement, he's not going to be a part of the solution. But, he gets another year for sure.

I don't think it's as debatable as you're making it. He hasn't shown an aging arm, or even legs really. He's actually escaped pressure better than any QB we've had in a long, long time it seems. And no, he's not looking great so far but I think that's not due to anything but being a bit of slow learner of a brand new system, which happens at that position more often than not. I tell you what, though, he's looked better the last few weeks even though it's not showing up on the stat sheet. He looks a lot more comfortable and is making quicker reads. Shanahan himself stated such. There is absolutely no reason to believe he'll regress instead of progress from here on out. It could happen, but that's not what we're seeing thus far, and a lot of your reasoning against the trade is based on the idea that the McNabb trade was short-sighted.

No. I can't know that for sure. His play thus far suggests they may be, though.

Again, no it doesn't. Not in the least bit. All his play seems to suggest thus far is that he had trouble grasping the system as fast as you'd like. In terms of his arm and health, he looks fine out there.

I never said 3-4 years wasn't long term

But you did say the McNabb trade was short-sighted, implying that it wasn't a long term solution. Right?

He may be here long term, but that doesn't mean he's going to be effective.

Ahh, I see... so you're worried about his effectiveness. Well, here's the deal, you may be right, but that's the same with whatever draft pick we gave up for him, right? Heck, he is much less of a risk than any draft pick, so it could be argued that in terms of effectiveness McNabb holds much more value than any young guy who could go either way.

Why do people bring up Zorn/Cerrato? They're gone. And their talent evaluations weren't something anyone is saying they were great at. Had we piled up picks with someone halfway competent running the draft we would have had different results.

I brought them up just like I brought Gibbs up, only to point out that we have not previously done the "dual" approach that you claimed "hasn't worked". With Gibbs, we were extremists when it came to trading picks and bringing in older vets. Under Zorn/Cerrato, we did the opposite and failed miserably with almost all of our picks. That has to do with the philosophy of the "dual" approach, in that it wasn't what we've done before and that a balanced approach can work.

To assume that any of us believe it's the only way is foolish, but then again, you did call out three people who have some knowledge and tell us we should "know better" essentially, to disagree with you. We've tried the vets/young guys approach. We've tried the vets approach. They didn't work. Why not try to blow it up? I still haven't seen a good argument against it. Because we may stink for a few years? What else is new?

Come on, KDawg, I didn't mean it like that, lol. It's not about disagreeing with me, it's about knowing what we've done in the past. I was shocked to see you guys say we've done the mixed, balanced, or "dual" approach before when we really haven't. You guys are respected vets here in ES, so I assumed you would know better. Maybe we should get some young'ns to take your place. It might take them a few years to get their post counts up and gain the experience you guys have so it'll stink around here for a while, but then maybe ES will be a contender. :pfft:

Talk is cheap. Show me. Denver means squat to me. So far in DC, he's trading picks. He gets a free pass to do it differently. He probably shouldn't be fully judged in year one. But, I'll believe this when I see it. And man I hope I see it.

Well, he's said that he's not in the business of doing such and that this offseason dictated trading picks more than usual due to extenuating circumstances, and I think that's understandable. I don't see why you can't accept his "talk" when you know it was tough to bring in young guys through Free Agency last year, we had way too many needs at Oline, and a top ten QB is available on the market. I feel like he's totally justified here, and coupled with his past of not really trading picks away, why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt? Aren't you just being a negative contrarian then?

You don't think that has anything to do with the approach of vets (and when I say vets, I mean old dudes) + young guys = winner?

Absolutely not. That was more of a poor choice of character and bad understanding of chemistry in terms of how players fit in the schemes we employ. That, and we awarded some guys long term contracts when they were way past their prime. That has nothing to do with mixing vets with young guys by way of a balanced approach.

And that's shocking? They didn't fit our schemes. Jason Taylor didn't fit at all. Deion and Bruce probably weren't as bad as people think they were, but a lot of the guys we attempted to bring in did not fit our schemes. It shouldn't have been shocking they didn't pan out.

Yup, we're not disagreeing there.

Coach/GM error.

Yup.

That's a philosophy. Sign big names and hope it works. It sells jerseys and tickets, so why not? How does is this NOT an approach or philosophy? Sign old guy who doesn't fit because he put up good numbers in a different system. I agree, though, that it is AWFUL personnel and communication. I guess it didn't help that Vinny had Zorn's balls in a glass jar on his desk, either. But that was our owner allowing Cerrato to let that happen. I'm hoping Snyder turned the corner, but again, show me. And thus far, I'm pleased with at least that much.

Well, it's a philosophy separate from the one Allen/Shanny are employing, right? That's what we're getting at here.

Solid? Neither has proven to be solid. McNabb is ranked in the bottom 1/4 of the league as a QB and Brown can't stay healthy. Can they turn it around? Sure. But they aren't doing so well right now.

Eh, rankings are for losers. :pfft:

It hasn't been smooth, but if you can't see how both McNabb and Brown are improving and how they've played as of late, then you and I won't be able to come to a harmonious conclusion. That's too bad, because boy am I feeling good and harmonious tonight. I even have some Bone Thugs-N-Harmony playing.

Our defense is older than dirt itself. We need to replace nearly everything on it to run the 3-4. Seriously. That doesn't effect the team?

Oh, come on... that's hyperbole. We need a solid NT (though it's been nice to see Maake improve as well, he was awful the first 5-6 games of the season, but now he's definitely serviceable, but still should be a back up who comes in here and there) and another OLB to complement Orakpo and we're pretty much good to go. I mean, you could argue we need to improve at both DE positions, but I don't think we're that bad there.

I think that you believe that that's what I'm saying is naive. We don't have anyone behind a lot of these guys. Who's our backup QB? Who's our backup NT? DEs? MLBs? OLBs? Not to mention some of these young guys are fillers, which is fine, but we don't have a starting caliber FS, LG, C, RG, #3 receiver, RB.

Our backup QB is better than a lot of backup QBs out there right now. He knows the system inside out, at least. NT is a big issue, definitely. DEs in a 3-4 are not of utmost importance, but we've got Jarmon to look forward to there and Kedric is fairly young. Haynesworth is still in his prime. If we let him go, we'll get a younger replacement I'm sure, either with the pick we get for him or elsewhere. At MLB, Rocky is still young and Riley is a potential starter. At OLB, I really like Chris Wilson backing up Orakpo, and Alexander is a solid back up, but we do need someone better in front of Lorenzo.

And Kareem Moore is a starting caliber FS. He's not an all-pro, but he has been solid. We know our problems on the Oline, at WR and at RB, not sure why that's even brought up. We've actually gotten much younger at those spots, and we have guys on the practice squad who have potential. You can't say that's meaningless, either, since Shanahan has already shown a great propensity to sign guys from the practice squad who then produce for this team.

Obviously as a team that needs to progress we have holes. But we have a ton of them. Why masquerade as being a decent team? Why not take our lumps and see what happens? And for the record, getting younger may include signing 27, 28, 29 year olds. That would make us a ton younger. It's not just 22-23 year olds that help that. We're extremely old.

Yeah, well, signing a bunch of young guys just because they're young doesn't necessarily mean you'll fill in some holes. As I've stated before, you need to field a team that can compete just to be able to evaluate properly. If you have a ton of young guys instead of the vets we brought in, and are just awful because of it, don't you think that would affect the motivation, and thus, the play of those young guys? It's hard to get up and put in the effort when you know you're going to get out there and get embarrassed. That's why I like a guy like Galloway out there showing our young guys how it's done until they can prove they've gotten it down. Shanahan isn't sticking with vets just because, yet a lot of arguments are based on that speculation.

Casey Rabach.

He's always been baffling to me, lol. I think ever since 2007. I don't get it. My only explanation is that he's, uhm, super smart. Coaches love how good he is at the line calls, and just become blind to everything else I guess.

I think that's all I need to say right now. Get him the **** out. Our entire DL is old as dirt. Riley isn't playing much on defense. Austin just got in so I'll assume the best there. Kevin Barnes? That's about all the youth we have and a lot of them aren't being put on the field consistently.

Just because they're not on the field consistently doesn't mean they won't be soon or that they aren't improving anyway. Again, we've seen guys like Torain and Banks end up on the practice squad, only to take on big roles in the team as they prove themselves in practice. For instance, Torain had a preseason where he ran way too upright and Banks kept fumbling... so no, we didn't almost screw the pooch there as you mentioned below. Once they improved those aspects of their game, they got in.

Another thing, Shanahan has shown that if a guy isn't working hard or isn't someone he believes can help the team, he'll cut them no matter who they are. So on that alone we can look forward to the young guys we have on our roster and on the practice squad as being potential contributors sooner rather than later until they're actually cut.

Banks is, for sure, but we came close to screwing the pooch on him at the start of the season too.

Already mentioned above.

You're acting like Banks was what he is now from day one, and that's not true. Shanahan helped the guy get better and didn't let it cost the team in the process. With your philosophy of getting younger since we're going to suck so why play older guys at all, Shanny would've plugged in Banks the first game of the season at Kick/Punt Returner and WR. He then would've most likely fumbled a ball or two since he made the team doing that and there were little to no consequences. Is that fair to the other guys on the team? Heck, is that fair to the fanbase? Ok, he eventually would've got better, but why allow him to cost the team before then?

The way Shanny is doing it now, Banks had to improve in practice, then was elevated to the active roster. He then was given a couple chances a game to return punts. Once he shown he wasn't much of a liability and wouldn't fumble it half the time, Shanny gave him more and more time and then made him the kick returner as well after cutting Devin, who Banks proved to be better than in just a few months. Now he's getting more reps at WR, where it's much harder to solidify a spot in the NFL. How is this not the better approach? Why should we put Banks in from day one just to say "well, at least we're younger there, so let's watch him grow and make mistakes when it counts during game day"?

[icbmayday]

We need to focus on O line in the draft and also in free agency

[addicted]

IMO your approach here is too simplistic and overreacting to our mistakes. Right now it looks like we are on track for first rounder towards the middle to high end of the draft. If we don't have a guard, center or RT (arguably right now we need an interior lineman) rated that high, and you need to be a real special guard or for that matter C or RT to be a high to middle first rounder and we got another player rated higher, lets say a WR, LB, NT, it makes no sense to me to go o line with the first round.

The biggest issue with drafting someone in the first round is that the teams on the hook for a large salary. The salarys the rookies have been getting paid is at the heart of the labor dispute right now threatening the league next season. I do expect there to be a season and I also expect to see a rookie cap in place. So taking that away you just have to look around the league right now to see what is working with other teams to plan our offseason. Cedric Benson's done well in Cinncinnatti since joining them. Thomas Jones has done well since joining the Chiefs. Michael Vick has done well for the Eagles. Ladainan Tomlinson has done well this year as well. Terrell Owens and Brandon Lloyd...who saw that coming? I could keep going on but what I see is teams that used free agency to sign skilled position players working out well. Yes there have been many boneheaded signings in the past like the Javon Walker but if we can get quality skilled positions in Free Agency which we can this offseason with Vincent Jackson, Sydney Rice, Deangelo Williams, Ahmad Bradshaw, Joesph Addai, to name a few players I wouldn't think it's in our best interest this year to go in those directions in the draft.

Now NT would fall into the trenches that I'm believing we should go but the truth is we have unfinished business with Albert Hanyesworth. What's his future? With that unsettled do you think we can risk going into the draft with him in mind and make this pick? For that matter DT is one of the most valuable positions in football and most of the top DT's are gone by our pick. So your thinking that the fourth or fifth best DT in the draft is going to help us more then an Offensive linemen then I suppose that means all of the Guards and Centers are pretty bad and then I would support this. But I have many doubts that the best Guard or Center in the draft is not going to help us more keeping McNabb on his feet and opening some running lanes so whoever is our running back can find daylight. I'm not saying it's not possible just unlikely. If you go DT at 1 then you still have the problem with opening those running lanes and keeping a 35 year old man upright.

LBer? Only if he's the next Ray Lewis, Dumerville, Orakpo, Demarcus Ware, or Ray Lewis. There are tons of busts at LBer in the history of the first round of the draft. Again you still have the problems on offense going this direction.

The Giants for example have ROUTINELY used their 2nd thru 4th rounders on lineman as opposed to first rounders. Instead of the Giants drafting lets say Beatty in the first round, they take him in the 2nd, and took Hakeem Nicks in the first. The Patriots don't take many O lineman in the first round.

The Chiefs reinforced one of my beliefs this year. I always wanted Snyder to instead of finding a new head coach to go raid an entire teams front office and scouting teams. The problem here is that we don't have NY's personnel that scouts these players. To expect that we will suddenly have the ability to draft doesn't stand up under the light when you review the resumes of Shannahan and Allen. I'm not saying they can't find the talent, you pointed out several steals in the draft Shanahan was a part of, but not responsible for since he wasn't the GM picking those players. It can happen but our recent history leaves much doubt in my mind that ignoring our most critical needs on the team for the later rounds in the draft won't have us with the answers we seek. The offensive line controls everything

And your point here

How can you grade that draft so quickly? First of all, they had like zero picks. Vinny traded away the 3rd and 6th. and shanny traded the 2nd.

Doesn't change the fact we are once again missing rounds 3 and 4 picks this year. Our 7th round picks and our undrafted linemen haven't produced this year and we certainly need the help. As for grading the draft far too many players are picked that never produce and most guys don't do anything in the league ever. I'm not betting on someone suddenly being able to play at the offensive line position. Either you can't or you can and Shanny knows linemen.

What's the point of taking an o lineman in the first round to simply overcompensate from past mistakes?

Because it demonstrates that you know how to win in the league. Why do you think Shanny is known as the coach who could take almost any runner and make him an NFL star? Was it simply that those guys were terrific and he struck gold over and over again? I think it's because he had one hell of an NFL offensive line that opened holes so big you could drive a truck through them that anyone could do well on. Like we did in 1987 when Timmy Smith set the NFL record for most rushing yards in a game. If you can do that you can beat anyone. There is no mistake to own up to in my opinion. You want a consistent winner then get a bad ass line. The Colts are struggling this year because their line isn't giving Payton Manning time to make throws. They got to the Superbowl last year because they could control everyone. One season up, one season down. Payton's not playing great right now because he's protecting himself and rushing his throws not having the time he's used to.

Take the best player available, if that happens to be an o lineman great, if not there are other rounds in this draft besides the first -- and no our team hasn't habitually used those picks on lineman.

Don't you wonder why we haven't won much with this approach? It doesn't work if your house isn't in order. Once the lines good then this is our best approach but you have to do what's right first. More protection gives the QB more time to make the throws. More running room allows the running back to do better. Nothing is good when you have 1-3 seconds and the opposing defense is breathing down your neck.

Not bad working the undrafted poool. Banks undrafted FA, Armstrong undrafted FA, Williams undrafted FA.

Skill position players all of them and your selling it short I think. Without these guys what would the season be like? Going skill positions in Free Agency is the way to go and all of these men were FA's.

Much easier to have stellar drafts when you have actual picks to use. I am not going to give ANY draft picker a hard time for their 6th rounder not making it. The big rounds are 1st, 2nd 3rd. And we didnt have a 2nd or third. Late round guys are long shots.

Agree completely and it's this fact that says to me that we use these picks on the offensive line. Trying to find these guys later in the draft doesn't work and this is far too important to risk a super long shot on. You asked why I want to use the early picks on linemen, well you just answered the question. If the QB is important you do everything in your power to protect him. Your best shot at finding guys who can protect your QB are with your first pick.

If we keep crying about stuff like Vinny muffing the 6th rounder on Derrick Frost, to me that's silly stuff. It's sad that we are dependent on the 6th rounders making it, those players are long shots. We have to start building our team by holding the 2nd-4th rounders. And every once in a blue moon score with a late rounder. That's how it works for most teams.

Most teams suck this year with very few exceptions. And we don't have the third of fourth rounders anymore. And like you said expecting a late round guy to make the team better is a long shot. So why have a problem with using the early picks on the line?

Again you got the wrong premise so the conclusion doesn't make sense unless you misunderstood my point. My point is don't force a first round pick for an O lineman if you don't have one graded high. Consider your 2nd rounder which is the more common round that teams draft elite INTERIOR O lineman. To your point how has that worked for us thus far, implies we have been regularly using our 2nd rounders on interior lineman. And its simply not true. If I recall the last time we used a 2nd rounder an an O lineman was for Jon Jansen. That was in the PRIOR DECADE. Good teams from what I've noticed sometimes do draft their LT in their first round, but most tend to take the other positions on the O line in the 2nd-4th round. and no that hasn't been something we've tried to do and failed. We haven't tried it. We are no longer playing in the Jon Jansen/Norv Turner regime.

Completely true but will one Offensive Linemen fix this lines issues for the next 7 years? No. We need 3 players. And with us missing those picks it makes the most sense to get real with ourselves and our history and once again form a dominate line. We won with the Hogs. We see the Hogs every home game. Why can't we have the next version of the Hogs?

[Oldfan]

...OLDFAN, I spent about an hour writing a response for you, submitted it, didn't type in my password, came back to my computer and hit the back button. My post was no more... In time though you will have it.

That's frustrating. I appreciate your effort.

I assume you don't want webster's definition of those terms, rather you would like them put into context with a football program or more specifically the QB position, correct?

I edited my post to add the context requirement about an hour before your post appeared. I'm asking: Which one of the dictionary definitions for those words applies in the context of Frost's point?