wrecker Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Won't be long and nobody is going to get paid. Teams will be comprised almost entirely of young drafted guys who play for peanuts. 'specially after they get the rookie wage scale in place. Then the new CBA will need to have a welfare system clause to provide supplemental compensation to all the poor aging superstars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 It would also be interesting to see how many of the last 10 Superbowl winning teams were comprised of less than 10 and 5 FA starters. If I had to guess, I'd bet that most SB Winning Teams have roughly 5-10 FA starters on their Team.... (however few if any traded for draft picks). But again, I'm just guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor4Life Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 You have to also take into account the fact that we usually try to poke square pegs into round holes. When you pick up free agents, a smart idea would be not trying to plug a Jason Taylor into LDE or to try and turn Adam Archuletta into a coverage safety. Free agents are fine, we just have to start using them correctly and comforming our scheme to their talents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Of course we have to use FA to fill holes. We have to many holes to fill and not enough draft picks.The problem in the past was giving up draft picks to obtain FA's. I disagree with that philosophy. That said, you have to have balance. Use the draft and FA to bring in players and make sure if you pay a player they are young and still want to play. The "agent"(player) is not "free" when he is traded from place to place. Hence, it is impossible to actually give up picks for FAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell1106 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I am talking about since 2000, when it appers NFL owners and GMs began to really figure out free agency.Has there been any team that brought in a "class" of free agents that went on to win the Superbowl Looking back at the Superbowl winners since 2000 2000- Ravens (no, this team was built on a dominant D which was drafted in the latter half of the 90s) 2001- Patriots (this could be close) 2002- Bucs (the core of this team was drafted, guys like Sapp, Lynch, Brooks. But there were key FAs like Brad Johnson) 2003- Patriots (I would argue no) 2004- Patriots (no) 2005- Steelers (no) 2006- Colts (wasn't this team entirely made up of drafted players?) 2007- Giants (no. Core was drafted, Plaxico was key FA addition back in 2005) 2008- Steelers (no) 2009- Saints (this may count, seeing that Drew Brees was an FA QB) I bring this up because there is an obvious desire in our fan base to do some serious shopping this spring (if a CBA is reached) We potentially could have a free agent class of Vincent Jackson, Ryan Khalil, Davin Joseph, Paul Solali, Stephen Bowen, and Jacoby Jones That would take of needs on the o-line, d-line, and WR corps bringing those 6 guys in. My question is though, is that the right way to build this thing back up? There is nothing wrong with Free Agency. The problem is "trading draft picks" for free agents. We gave away picks like they were mints over the last decade. That's why I could care less about the Haynseworth debacle. It's personal between Skins brass and Hayney but minus Snyder's money going bye bye, who the hell cares (and uncapped year). Just stop TRADING AWAY DRAFT PICKS becuase that's the only way you build your team's core (today, tomorrow, starters, backups, etc). And of course these were mostly trades, not unrestrected free agents but same difference when referencing our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Cooke Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The sensible use of free agency is not a vice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirt Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The only reason people really want to dig in to free agency this year is because we have just that many holes. It simply can't be fixed with one draft, or even two. I mean, look around the league, there's bad teams but they still have depth. Still have talent. This Redskins team is like scratching the bottom of the barrel. Beyond Davis, there is absolutely zero depth. I don't think there's another team in the league that's even close. FA is the only option, or we literally start signing guys from the practice squad to start if there's a few bangups. The only thing after that is forfeiting games, haha. But seriously, it's almost that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annonymous Source Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Exactly. The bigger question to me is which teams since 2000 won the Superbowl without significant free agent players? The answer is none of them. Well depending on your definition of "significant" I would argue that the Steelers and the Colts were both very much comprised of home grown talent. The biggest FA contributor that I can think of on the Steelers is Ryan Clark, and the Colts championship team was pretty much entirely home grown. This tells me that it can be done if the orginization is at a certain level of stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Free agency can be a positive for the franchise if used correctly. Many teams have won the super bowl with free agents making contributions. Plax, Brees, Brad Johnson, many more are all free agent guys who made big impacts on their teams respectively the year they won it all. Id argue that every team for the past 10 years had free agent contribution at some level. The problem with the Skins is that they bring in the wrong free agents and sign guys to mega deals without warrant. Teams like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New England et al seem to bring in players that fit their team well so the transition is way different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The OP asks for a SB winner BUILT WITH FREE AGENTS. If that asks for a Super Bowl winner where the starters were acquired mainly through free agency, the answer is none. Belichick's 2001 team had 16 cheap free agents used primarily as gap fillers. That's probably as close as you're going to get. In 2006, I did a study of the All-Pro squad. It showed that 53 of the 56 players on it were drafted by the team they represented. There were two free agents and one player obtained in trade (Champ Bailey). So, those results indicated that teams draft and keep their best players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The 1991 Redskins were built with trades and free agents. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Well depending on your definition of "significant" I would argue that the Steelers and the Colts were both very much comprised of home grown talent. The biggest FA contributor that I can think of on the Steelers is Ryan Clark, and the Colts championship team was pretty much entirely home grown. This tells me that it can be done if the orginization is at a certain level of stability. To me at least a "significant" players is a starter who posseses the ability to change the outcome of a game and Ryan Clark fits that bill in my eyes. It's impossible to look at any NFL roster and say that any starter isn't significant to the wins or losses a team has. It's a team game and unless you disect every play to see if someone played a role in the win or not they all deserve equal credit. To say a teams "built" on Free Agency is a stupid statement. If a team needed a FS and got one in FA and that pushed them to the championship does that not mean they are built on FA since they couldn't win without that FA? You tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The 1991 Redskins were built with trades and free agents. Really.Nah. Free agency , as we know it, didn't begin until 1992. Prior to that, free agents were few and not worth much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 If the Bears win the SB, I'll be pissed. They spent a boatload of picks getting their QB, worse than we did. And spent similar money to Haynesworth, to bring Julius Peppers in. That approach certainly doesn't work for most teams, including ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 The OP asks for a SB winner BUILT WITH FREE AGENTS. If that asks for a Super Bowl winner where the starters were acquired mainly through free agency, the answer is none. Belichick's 2001 team had 16 cheap free agents used primarily as gap fillers. That's probably as close as you're going to get.In 2006, I did a study of the All-Pro squad. It showed that 53 of the 56 players on it were drafted by the team they represented. There were two free agents and one player obtained in trade (Champ Bailey). So, those results indicated that teams draft and keep their best players. Old Fan seems to be the only one who understands the point of my thread Yes every team had free agents, and key free agents. However each team had a core that they drafted and built around The Ravens core on D led by Ray Lewis Brady on the Patriots O The Bucs D core The Steelers core players The Colts The Saints are probably the exception as they had several key guys not drafted. I am trying to find an example of a team where a 6-8 player, highly touted FA class was the core that led its team to a Superbowl. Reason being I fear we are going to make that mistake again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I beg to differ. The 1991 Skins were built through free agency and trades. Joe Jacoby(who was a free agent), Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, Brad Edwards, Danny Copeland, Matt Millen were all free agents. Byner, Lachey, Marshall, Eric Williams and Tim Johnson were all trades. I know Plan B isn't the same, but my point is there is no right way to build a team. I just want good players, I do not care how we get them. My point is that people are way too wrapped around the axle that every player we get has to be through the draft or else they aren't going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill1952 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The problem in the past was giving up draft picks to obtain FA's.Free agents don't cost draft picks unless they're Restricted Free Agents or they've been franchised. Players under contract cost draft picks. Trades can cost draft picks. But Unrestricted free agents do not cost draft picks. If we should pick up, say Logan Mankins in Free Agency, the Pats woulkd get a compensatory pick, but it wouldn't cost us a draft pick, unless they choose to franchise him. I think the problem was trading draft picks for players on other teams, like Jason Taylor, John Beck, McNabb, For instance, Deion Sanders, Adam Archuleta and Albert Haynesworth didn't cost us draft picks, they just cost us our integrity and our reputation.Every team has Free Agents. You get a lot longer time out of your players if they grew up in your system. Unfortunately, the Redskins haven't been stable enough for anybody but a fruit fly to grow in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 I beg to differ. The 1991 Skins were built through free agency and trades. Joe Jacoby(who was a free agent), Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, Brad Edwards, Danny Copeland, Matt Millen were all free agents. Byner, Lachey, Marshall, Eric Williams and Tim Johnson were all trades. I know Plan B isn't the same, but my point is there is no right way to build a team. I just want good players, I do not care how we get them. My point is that people are way too wrapped around the axle that every player we get has to be through the draft or else they aren't going to work. Totally different era Read the OP, 1991 had different FA rules and was a different operating enviornment Thats why I picked 2000. By then NFL FO's had adjusted to the new era of free agency, big time signing bonuses and player movement in general. Comparing how teams were built in the 1980s to today doesn't make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I beg to differ. The 1991 Skins were built through free agency and trades. Joe Jacoby(who was a free agent), Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, Brad Edwards, Danny Copeland, Matt Millen were all free agents. Byner, Lachey, Marshall, Eric Williams and Tim Johnson were all trades. I know Plan B isn't the same, but my point is there is no right way to build a team. I just want good players, I do not care how we get them. My point is that people are way too wrapped around the axle that every player we get has to be through the draft or else they aren't going to work.I agree with the gist of your statement, but not the specifics: Jacoby was a UDFA straight out of college, not really a FA, IMO. We got Clark via the supplemental draft from the USFL, not free agency... stopping here, the rest maybe OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2cents Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Yes it does make sense, just because the process was different doesn't change the fact that we won with a large number of free agents. The overall point is pick good players no matter what method you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Talent wins above all. Free Agency is a way to acquire talent. Therefore, Free Agency should be used. For a team as far away from contention as the Redskins, the only FAs they should really be looking at are guys who would be say 27 or younger on opening day next season. It's a deep enough class that there are plenty of good players who fit that bill. But mainly the team should be trying to build thru the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGQ Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think the best way is draft core players and added FA to fill the holes. As for our team right now, we have so many holes so I do see us signing more FA this year(if CBA is agreed). The key is signing young FA, not old and done like we did in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I beg to differ. The 1991 Skins were built through free agency and trades. Joe Jacoby(who was a free agent), Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, Brad Edwards, Danny Copeland, Matt Millen were all free agents. Byner, Lachey, Marshall, Eric Williams and Tim Johnson were all trades. I know Plan B isn't the same, but my point is there is no right way to build a team. I just want good players, I do not care how we get them. My point is that people are way too wrapped around the axle that every player we get has to be through the draft or else they aren't going to work.Clark and Sanders were taken in the supplemental draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Clark and Sanders were taken in the supplemental draft. Sanders wasn't. He was signed as a FA out of the USFL. EDIT: We actually traded for his rights. He had been selected by the Patriots. http://www.thehogs.net/History/legends/ricky-sanders.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WALL-LE Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 J-e-t-s jets jets jets!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.