Can't Build a Winner By Trading Picks and Signing FA's? Tell That to the Bears and Jets.

[Oldfan]

I think impossible is overemphasizing your point. It's certainly possible to fashion a team using trades and free agency. If you notice, I didn't use the word build in that first sentence. I think if you're looking at things with a microscope, the word "build" implies starting with a foundation and creating it from the ground up. When you try to fashion a team from free agents and trades I think it's more like moving from your house to a house that you feel is an upgrade...

The OP uses the word "build," not "fashion."

As I noted earlier, my study of the 2006 All-Pro team found that 52 of the 56 players played for the team that drafted them. That result should give us a feel for how difficult it is to find good players through free agency or trades.

[KDawg]

The OP uses the word "build," not "fashion."

As I noted earlier, my study of the 2006 All-Pro team found that 52 of the 56 players played for the team that drafted them. That result should give us a feel for how difficult it is to find good players through free agency or trades.

Then yes, if you're looking directly at the term "build" then I'd say you're correct.

[Wyvern]

The Jets have did rely on free agency a lot to get themselves over the hump into the playoffs. But they'd also built the basis of their team from draft choices (four of their five OL are home-grown). There was a llittle bit of 'the future is now' for the 2010 season, but the team was getting very competitive and just needed short-term upgraded help at the skilled positions.

The Bears are somewhat similar, but maybe not to the same extent as the Jets.

But as one ES fan already mentioned -- it's all about finding quality players who can still contribute to your team's success. The Redskins acquisitions have not been good -- and I wonder whether the Scouting department will need to be overhauled, to reverse that trend.

The Skins seem to be paying 'high' for the splashy free agent of the minute ... and then selling 'low' when the free agent doesn't fit the latest version of their plans. What worries me is that Allen's other teams reputedly didn't do all that well with talent acquisition; we may not be out of the woods yet on this one.

Maybe Snyder needs to spend some of his free agent money on upgrading his Scouting and Talent Acquisition network. Raid the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, or other team's scouting networks.

[kleese]

There is no doubt that you MUST draft well to be successful in the NFL- it's a given IMO; if you consistently draft poorly, I do not believe FA or trades can bail you out; and in that regard perhaps my use of the term "build" is misplaced. My bigger point was that "FA" and "trading picks" have become curse words around here and clearly those avenues can be very useful.

And I do think the Jets teeter on "building" their team that way; take Edwards, Holmes, Faneca, Woody, Taylor, LT, Cronartie, Leohnard, etc. Off that team and they are not playing this weekend.

[flock53]

It is a balancing act and you have to get the right players. I was all for the Bruce Smith BUT one contract earlier. The Gibbs regime was good at it the 1st time around. Traded for Lachey, traded a #1 for Gerald Riggs I believe etc. 2nd time around was different, 3rd for an ageing Brunnell and FA busts in AA and BL. If it works, your genius and if not, you get your pink slip. Problem w/ drafting EVERYONE is that they all come up for contract at the same time and if you hit a great class, you cant possibly retain all of them. Especially if your winning. Even if you extend a couple early, you may still run into cap trouble. Its safe to say it will be easy to tell what teams will be targeting in FA if the CBA isnt signed prior to the draft. Danny better purge the roster of washed up players this year and start off right w/ the new CBA.

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 09:47 AM ----------

The Jets have did rely on free agency a lot to get themselves over the hump into the playoffs. But they'd also built the basis of their team from draft choices (four of their five OL are home-grown). There was a llittle bit of 'the future is now' for the 2010 season, but the team was getting very competitive and just needed short-term upgraded help at the skilled positions.

The Bears are somewhat similar, but maybe not to the same extent as the Jets.

But as one ES fan already mentioned -- it's all about finding quality players who can still contribute to your team's success. The Redskins acquisitions have not been good -- and I wonder whether the Scouting department will need to be overhauled, to reverse that trend.

The Skins seem to be paying 'high' for the splashy free agent of the minute ... and then selling 'low' when the free agent doesn't fit the latest version of their plans. What worries me is that Allen's other teams reputedly didn't do all that well with talent acquisition; we may not be out of the woods yet on this one.

Maybe Snyder needs to spend some of his free agent money on upgrading his Scouting and Talent Acquisition network. Raid the Pats, Steelers, Ravens, or other team's scouting networks.

Danny dont have to spend big of scouting, HE JUST HAS TO LOOK HERE :point2sky

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 09:58 AM ----------

Ive said all along that FAs are good cause you should know what your getting on THIS level. We had 2 coaching regimes that totally killed us in Spurrier in which he purged the roster to bring in his people and Zorn, who had talent but just was in way over his head.

[Skinsinparadise]

No, it isn't nonsense because the core of every perennial winner has been built and maintained primarily through the draft. The best you're going to prove is that winning teams use trades and free agency to complete their rosters.

In 2006, I posted a study that I put together of that year's all-pro team. 52 of the 56 players were playing for the team that drafted them. Three were free agents and one was acquired by trade (Champ Bailey).

NFL teams draft and keep their best players.

I agree. The one thing I could never understand about Vinny and Gibbs is if you are going to go crazy and sign free agents shouldn't that help preclude you from trading draft picks? Belichick clearly likes to sign free agents and bring in veterans but there is a major difference between his approach and ours: 1. He isn't breaking the bank by signing the biggest guy out there 2. He doesn't just use his picks, he adds picks and does it religiously.

The Bears have made some bad trades ala Gaines Adams, and not because his tragic death, he just wasn't worth the high pick they gave up. But cutler looks to be worth it, and Peppers was a good free agent signing. But the core of their roster seems to be draft picks especially on defense. If you go through the Redskins trades over the years and lets just keep it from 2003:

5th rounder for James Thrash -- Eagles picked Trent Cole with that pick.

3rd rounder for Mark Brunell

add a 2nd along with Bailey for Portis

and extra 2nd rounder for Rocky Mcintosh

the extra picks for J Campbell

if I recall an extra 2nd rounder for Cooley -- that was a good one though

3rd and 4th for Lloyd

3rd and 4th for Duckett

7th for E. James

2nd an 4th for McNabb

2nd and 6th for Jason Taylor

1st rounder for L. Coles

4th rounder for Trung Candidate

4th rounder for Chad Morton

4th rounder for Pete Kendall

5th for Brenden Stai

6th rounder for Matt Bown

7th rounder for Lionel Dalton

7th rounder for Martin Chase

To sum this all up as being horrible IMO is an understatement. IMO its a nightmare and is one of the biggest reasons why teams that horde their picks in our division like the Giants and Eagles are consistently better. Just because the Jets and Bears traded to get good QB's and complemented their roster some, doesn't make me regret that the team hadn't made more trades. Personally, am not so convinced the Bears are for real, will see. And yeah I get the point that you can be smarter with your trades, I agree with that, but IMO you can't build a long term successful franchise by building the team the way the Redskins have.

[ThomasRoane]

A lot of people will say that you don't adjust your scheme just for a few players. But what if you've invested a LOT in those players and an adjustment will absolutely make a difference? To me, if making ofensive or defensive adjustments to better suit a great player(s) that we heavily invested in makes more sense than getting rid of them or benching them b/c they don't fit the scheme.

That's not a good comparison. The Jets have been to the playoffs the last two years in one of the toughest divisions in the NFL. The system on offense and defense was already in place. Mangini learned the 3-4 from the Master at New England. Rex added to the defense and retained Brian Schottenheimer's offense (with all the motion and shifting). So the FA's just had to fit into an existing system.

What had the Redskins 'system' ever done for them? I love how many of you bring up top ten defense that led to how many winning seasons? Blache was a good guy but his philosophy was to play not to lose; instead of playing to win. You all forget how many times teams drove the length of the field when it really mattered to put the game away. Or how often we gave up Third and 10 plus because we were 10 yards off the freaking ball! The offense wasn't any better; actually worse.

So what exactly was Shannhan and Allen supposed to hang their hat on from a scheme perspective? There was nothing. So they wisely started establishing the framework this year. And can build on it in the near future.

[sjinhan]

If you are have a good offensive line, you can do all the trades and FA signing if you want and make it work. Without good blockers.. its pointless to waste our picks and money on outside talent.

[darklight1216]

If you are have a good offensive line, you can do all the trades and FA signing if you want and make it work. Without good blockers.. its pointless to waste our picks and money on outside talent.

I'm all for offensive linemen, but Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago, and Green Bay haven't been horrifically awful despite not having the best lines out there.

[Skinsinparadise]

The OP uses the word "build," not "fashion."

As I noted earlier, my study of the 2006 All-Pro team found that 52 of the 56 players played for the team that drafted them. That result should give us a feel for how difficult it is to find good players through free agency or trades.

I am with you on the point about trades, but free agency I am more mixed on -- I like FA when its played well. but i am not so sure your stats backs up your point. i would gather the typical NFL player isn't traded or leaves via free agency and that would go double for pro bowl players. Most teams are less worried about franchising pro bowl players because it would fit closer to the actual market for the player and rarely do teams trade pro bowl players unless they are headaches or past their prime.

what really gets me about the Skins approach is some like to say that the Skins just sign and trade for stars but if you go through their transactions, not really. they sign marginal to good players mostly and pay them as if they are stars. when they made Archuleta the highest paid safety, its not as if he was an elite pro bowl player the previous season, but they paid him like he was Ed Reed. Albert Haynsworth aside and the Bruce Smith/Deon period, this team for the MOST part went after players they weren't special but paid them as if they were. Duckett wasn't a stud. Randle El wasn't a legit 2nd WR with the Steelers, on and on.

And the one thing I'll agree with s if you can get a franchise/good QB make a trade. I was supportive of both the pursuit of Culter and Sanchez at the time.

[gortiz]

One common theme on ES is that the Redskins need to change the way they build a team...no longer focusing on trading picks and signing FA's, but instead building through the draft and finding diamonds in the rough.

Let me first say, that I DO hope the Redskins go that route. I hope we get younger and hungrier.

But saying it can't be done the other way is pure nonsense.

I totally understand what you are sayin ... but picking two teams and one season as your example is a real small sample size.

if you look at all playoff teams over several years than it would be more compelling.

again ... i get what you are saying.

[Skinsinparadise]

But saying it can't be done the other way is pure nonsense.

I get the point and agree of course that its all about which players you target and land as opposed to a philosophy. But it can be argued that NO ONE has done trading picks like the Skins. Yeah teams trade picks and use free agency but especially when it comes to trading picks, I recall reading something a year ago for a long stretch of time the Skins have averaged the least number of picks in the NFL and even the new franchises coming in later caught up and surpassed the number of picks we had. Could be wrong on this but it was something close to it, we have given up the equivalent of like 3 or more full drafts over a decade or something to that extent.

It's sort of like saying to an alcoholic who drinks a 12 pack every day -- look that guy drinks 2 beers a day and is more than fine, and heck he even has lowered his cholesterol. it's not an apples to apples analogy but I am using it to bring home my point about the skins going to the extreme.

Tt if they have an opportunity to get a guy like Vincent Jackson I'm not going to be against it simply because we've missed on guys in the past.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm much less concerned about which philosophical approach this regime takes, and much more concerned that they just get good players that fit well. It can be done both ways.

I used to be somewhat on board with this but the McNabb trade was the kicker for me, it is the last trade am giving the FO the benefit of the doubt. We get burned on arguably 90% of our trades. I just don't see how the team can sustain itself this way. It's one thing if you are already close, made the AFC championship last year, and feel like adding a wide receiver for a 5th rounder, and a corner will take you over the top -- while still by the way maintaining your first and 2nd rounders, what the heck. The Bears likewise have had recent runs to the top, granted they are more of an up and down team, but is practically a cliche that the QB position has been holding them back.

the problem IMO with blowing a trade versus FA is this: when you screw up and trade a 3rd and 4th of Duckett, you also blow an opportunity to find his replacement. Heck guys like S. Davis was a 4th rounder, B. Mitchell a 5th, Ryan Torrain a 5th, etc. So unlike a FA, unless its an AH FA that bust your cap, you really got to get it right with a draft pick trade.

[Hail Gibbs]

The Bears already had a solid defense and were recently in a superbowl before making free agent moves.

The Jets have no problem adapting or simplifying their defense and offense unlike our alleged super smart shannys who are too mule headed to adjust to the players strengths.

Depending on what they do with McNabb and Haynesworth will determine what type of free agents will come here. If the perception is that they are asshats the shannys will have to overpay to get key cogs to come here.

Why would a Vincent Jackson play for a perceived jerk if he can go to a team like the Vikes or stay on the west coast and go to the 49ers?

I am not sure VJax cares who coaches him or who he plays for as long as he is being paid what he feels he is worth. To me he proved how little he cares about team and winning football games by sitting out as much of the year as he could without hurting his own situation. That is the exact type of personality the Skins need to avoid IMO.

Would much rather take a shot on a guy like Sidney Rice, who I think is more talented than VJax anyhow.

[Crazy Levi]

One common theme on ES is that the Redskins need to change the way they build a team...no longer focusing on trading picks and signing FA's, but instead building through the draft and finding diamonds in the rough.

Let me first say, that I DO hope the Redskins go that route. I hope we get younger and hungrier.

But saying it can't be done the other way is pure nonsense.

The Jets have key cogs all over their roster that came from free agency or trading draft picks. And both of their starting WR's were dealt for coming in with serious baggage (Edwards and Holmes). Cromartie, LT, Jason Taylor, Bart Scott, etc....were all brought in to fill gaps and plug holes. Of course, the Jets have drafted fairly well recently (although they did have a top 5 total bust in Vernon Gholston).

The Bears also made one huge FA signing (Peppers) and made one major trade (Cutler) that totally reshaped their team on both sides of the ball.

The philosophy is NOT the problem...it's WHO you target that matters.

I want ShanAllen to build a winner; I really don't care how they do it.

From where I sit, what this regime has done WELL so far is get production out of younger, unproven players (Trent, Banks, Torain, Keiland, etc..) What they've done poorly is identify what vets can help (McNabb, Ma'aake).

I think it's time for the Redskins to go the young route full bore, but if they have an opportunity to get a guy like Vincent Jackson I'm not going to be against it simply because we've missed on guys in the past.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm much less concerned about which philisophical approach this regime takes, and much more concerned that they just get good players that fit well. It can be done both ways.

Yeah, except here's the problem:

The Redskins AREN'T the Bears or the Jets. they are the Redskins. Every year they sign or trade for old ass players, and trade away draft picks, and it NEVER works.

It worked for the Jets? Well hey, good for them.

Clearly, when the Skins do it it's a miserable failure. Or have you not been paying attention?

It's time for a NEW strategy around here. And that is to get younger. The Skins are always old, and always average or worse.

That needs to change. What other teams in the league are doing has nothing to do with it.

[flock53]

Yeah, except here's the problem:

The Redskins AREN'T the Bears or the Jets. they are the Redskins. Every year they sign or trade for old ass players, and trade away draft picks, and it NEVER works.

It worked for the Jets? Well hey, good for them.

Clearly, when the Skins do it it's a miserable failure. Or have you not been paying attention?

It's time for a NEW strategy around here. And that is to get younger. The Skins are always old, and always average or worse.

That needs to change. What other teams in the league are doing has nothing to do with it.

New strategy is cool as long as the fans are patient. 3-4 years to get younger and develope. Then those players are up to resign and if we still are picking at the top of the draft, we lose out on a few young guys cause you cant resign all of them + pay top dollars for top 10 talent.....unless a rookie pay scale is implemented.....highly unlikely. Pros/Cons with both philosphies

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

the jets drafted their oline, they drafted sanchez, they drafted greene, they drafted revis, they drafted multiple guys contributing on that team. sure they brought in FAs that fit what they were trying to do, but they didnt ignore the draft like we have done multiple times.

and most of the bears impact players were drafted (urlacher, briggs, forte, hester, tillman, harris). cutler and peppers were two smart pickups, but again, they had a good corp before they showed up. lets not forget the bears were in the superbowl with most of these same guys with grossman under center 4 years ago.

the skins wont be successful until we have a young corp of impact guys at key positions. once we get that corp, then we can do whatever in free agency, but neither of these teams mentioned built their team in any way shape or form that has resembled what the redskins have done over the past decade.

[Bat~man]

I totally understand what you are sayin ... but picking two teams and one season as your example is a real small sample size.

if you look at all playoff teams over several years than it would be more compelling.

again ... i get what you are saying.

+1

The OP just points out the exceptions that prove the rule. If you're smart about it, then sure it could work. We have proven time and time again, that if you're playing Madden with Monopoly money, that it won't work. What is so hard to understand about "Keep doing the same things will net the same results". The bears pretty much drafted their stars, aside from Cutler, which is proving to be smart.

The Jets also drafted a lot of their players. They had teams in place and needed a few key pieces. We will trade for any big name available, if he doesn't fit our system? Who cares? We do it anyway. In the meantime, we have no depth and no starters at a lot of positions because we have no picks.. because we traded those picks for players who may not even be playing (McNabb). So yea, ...

[Destino]

The Jets have key cogs all over their roster that came from free agency or trading draft picks. And both of their starting WR's were dealt for coming in with serious baggage (Edwards and Holmes). Cromartie, LT, Jason Taylor, Bart Scott, etc....were all brought in to fill gaps and plug holes. Of course, the Jets have drafted fairly well recently (although they did have a top 5 total bust in Vernon Gholston).

There is a major difference between going to FA to try to get over the hump and trying to BUILD a team via free agency. How many of the players you listed were responsible for the Jets making the AFC championship LAST season? Bart Scott played for their head coach making the situation more "a head coach bringing in his guys" then it is your standard FA blitz.

The Bears also made one huge FA signing (Peppers) and made one major trade (Cutler) that totally reshaped their team on both sides of the ball.

Again there is a difference in adding key pieces, which you must do or end up like the Lord of No Rings, and BUILDING a team via free agency.

[MumboSauce]

I agree with the fact that FA's are good if you know they fit what you are trying to do. Just because they were successful where they were, doesn't mean they will be with your team/scheme and personnel. Know for a fact they will thrive in your system first and not solely get giddy over their stats or performance elsewhere. I think there are a few rare players like a London Fletcher or a Clay Mathews that will make plays and thrive wherever you put them.

In the case of last season, if the player is already present on your team you have to adjust/curtail the system to the strength of the player.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

the jets most important players were drafted:

franchise LT in ferguson: DRAFTED

franchise C in mangold: DRAFTED

franchise QB in sanchez: DRAFTED

shutdown corner in Revis: DRAFTED

starting RB greene: DRAFTED

starting TE keller: DRAFTED

their entire 3-4 Dline: DRAFTED

starting ILB harris: DRAFTED

they have an over the hill pass rush specialist, a solid rotational RB, and two starting WR they got in FA/trades. that isnt even on the same planet as the redskins.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I do know that the 2000 Redskins who everybody calls a FA team was made up of mostly of guys who had been Redskins for most of their careers or so came to us after their original teams were done with them. Of the intended starters on offense, only 3 began their careers in non-Redskin uniforms and on defense the most important guys were our first picks in 1999 and 2000. Further, all the key backups were long-term Redskins.

That team was more unlucky than a bust to be honest.

The main acquisitions that year came on defense (Sanders, Smith, Carrier) and the defense improved from 30th to 5th (I'm basing those rankings on memory, but that's roughly what happened). It was the "core Redskins" who let us down that year. Brad Johnson wasn't the same guy (really, he wasn't the same guy after the halfway point of 1999), Michael Westbrook got injured, etc. In fact, you could even make the argument that the team played better when George (the other big-name addition) was in there.

The biggest downfall was the lack of a kicker. I remember going through the schedule several years ago and finding that one made FG in 3 or 4 different games would have put the team comfortably in the playoffs and probably won the division (since we'd have beaten NY and Philly in two of those games). If that happens, you never know how that team would be remembered. If I recall correctly, we only won a couple of questionable games and lost a bunch of them. So, it certainly seems that we were unlucky in 2000 more than just underachieving. In the end, I think we overvalued our offense and didn't have any good contingency plans for injuries at WR. We had Andre Reed and Irving Fryar catching passes late in that season.

[ptr77]

I think the Jets are a horrible example for any team to follow. Look at their roster, the contracts and when they are up. There probably won't be a lot of continuity with that roster. I do like how they draft though, the find what they want and go get it (Revis, Sanchez, etc..). Correct me if I'm wrong but if there were a cap this year the Jets would be way way over it, which means in an uncapped year their current roster would be unfeasible. IMO the Jets are trying to buy a superbowl in the uncapped year and their roster is not made for the long haul.

[wilbur58z]

Jets have too many good draft picks on their roster to make this argument.

And at key positions as well: QB, LT, CB, C, MLB.

They are basically just supplementing that core with these trades they've made.

The Redskins spend their picks on DBs, wide receivers, and H-back tight ends.

And of course they draft like two fullbacks every year.

They have no core to build around as a result.

[addicted]

But saying it can't be done the other way is pure nonsense.

When looking around the league no matter the year you will always see different ways that teams have found success. All this proves to me is there is no magic road to go down or one fix for all. You are correct, thinking FA is the devil to avoid is losing sight of one of the ways to improve your team. However I'm not agreeing with the idea that our approach to FA is irrelvant when you consider the lessons from the first season under ShannyAllen like you mentioned here:

From where I sit, what this regime has done WELL so far is get production out of younger, unproven players (Trent, Banks, Torain, Keiland, etc..) What they've done poorly is identify what vets can help (McNabb, Ma'aake).

Ma'aake was a FA that didn't help us. McNabb although acquired from a trade could have been a FA addition if added this year instead of last year and that also didn't work out. You didn't mention Larry Johnson whom we signed as a FA on a three year deal and cut a few games in to this year, Galloway who we added from FA and cut this season, or the other FA's that didn't work out for this team like Josh Bidwell, Roydell Williams and Willie Parker. Our best FA addition this year might have been Rex Grossman but that depends on how he does next year.

Looking at the successes and failures of this team what I believe we need to see much more of is the infusion of younger hungier never done anything in the league dying to get a chance players then we need to venture into the realm of Free Agency. Our priority for improving this ball club in my eyes from most significant to least should be:

Priority 1 - Draft

Priority 2 - Other teams Practice Squad players

Priority 3 - Undrafted players signed after the draft

Priority 4 - Free Agent Veterans

The least priority we should be looking at improving is doing something silly like you suggest here:

if they have an opportunity to get a guy like Vincent Jackson I'm not going to be against it simply because we've missed on guys in the past.

Our past successes and failures should keep us from going after someone like Vincent Jackson. We all know we failed time and again on proven veterans like McNabb, Hanyesworth, Randle El, and on and on and on. If I were looking at the Chargers WR group I'm personally much more interested in a guy like Seyi Ajirotutu then I am in a guy like Vincent Jackson. I will probably be pissed if we were to sign VJax because that would be another Hanyesworth. To me our best successes in other teams player acquisitions over the past decade include:

Clinton Portis - Coming into his third NFL season, wanting to shed the "Just Another Denver RB" label

Santana Moss - Considered likely not to amount to much by the JETS when we got him

London Fletcher - Played great in Buffalo but had a chip on his shoulder to prove he was elite and a probowler

DeAngelo Hall - Young corner coming off a horrible expirence on another team with plenty let to prove

I'm sure I'm forgetting someone special here but the theme to me is that the players we sign in FA like these guys and Carriker all had something to prove and were hungry for another chance. Almost all of the Free Agents we signed who were big names on other teams failed under this leadership and others. We don't need to look at the Vinny years to see that FA didn't help this coaching staff either. When we are looking at Free Agency I believe we shouldn't target any "big names" because we aren't close to that yet. The teams to mentioned were already close to competing. Give me instead lots of young guys who show some potential to do something big in this league but haven't yet. Or else we run the likely risk of swinging and missing again and again and again

[kleese]

I'm not saying we should sign V Jax; as a matter of fact, I'd pass. But I do not think we should pass only player X simply because player Y was a bust. If the FO researches a guy like Jackson and believes he will be a team player and highly productive for 5 or more years than I want them to target that type of player- it's a way to get better faster.

I'm nor going to say Mike Shannahan shouldn't do something because Vinny Cerrato sucked at it.