Is it wrong for us to talk trash about our past accomplishments?

[addicted]

Well sure...I think any team that assembled a great D, great OL, great skill players, and a top game plan would succeed. I'd also bet that every team in NFL history is TRYING to do that. To me, that's not really a secret, the secret is in the HOW, not the WHAT.

I don't think we've been trying to do that for the past 20 years. Look we spent 2 first round picks in 10 years on the offensive line. To be the team that went to 4 Superbowls on the backs on the Hogs and to try and patch together a "decent" not "dominant" offensive line over the years has come back to kill us over and over again. First round picks during our superbowl run were a thing we weren't used to actually using. During that time we only used 3 first round picks and traded the others. This regime decided to jump in the pool with the other minnows and tried to build a team of primarily defensive first rounders and threatens to make the same mistake this year that's never shown to work for us.

During our Superbowl runs we didn't refuse to learn from our past mistakes, we learned from them and got better all the time, yet most here including the fanbase thinks that we can continue to ignore the offensive line, ignore our receiving group, ignore talent and scout evaluation to figure out how a draft like the 2008 draft went so poorly for us. About the only thing as a team we've shown any interest in from our superbowl runs over the years is finding that offensive minded coach that Gibbs was in the 1980's.

The problem is without the ability to put together a team one piece isn't enough. If we want to find success again we need to look at the offensive line and rebuild the Hogs first, not last. Without the Hogs the 1980's decade team doesn't happen. the 1980's Defense was impressive but wouldn't have won anything on that alone. Our receiving group was impressive in the 1980's but never would have won anything without the Hogs. The Hogs and our play calling were so dominate that it allowed us to take any RB or any QB we used and they were productive.

Yet here we are again with one solid starter (Williams), 1 possible player who we haven't signed to a contract extension that could possibly be a second starter for years (Brown), and three players we need to replace and find starters. Yet who are we looking at now according to some posters in the know? Defensive players. For us it doesn't work that way. If we just want to be mediocre with no championships then we've shown that's the way to go. If we want to go to the elite we need to be discussing offensive linemen, QB's, and WR's and create an offense that no team can stop like the 1991 team.

We are stuck in a rut and continue to repeat the same old mistakes over and over yet not too many people are talking about this. We have paved a road of success, yet we ignore it. That's what I mean by our past is a curse. If you just learn from it and repeat it success will come. If you ignore it and try and find success based on what other teams have done then we will continue to fail. I wonder why failure is even an option for us or why the fanbase thinks it sounds so good all the time? Our past is a curse and a blessing, its great we went to 4 Superbowls in 10 years. It's terrible that 20 years removed from it that we forgot how we got there in the first place

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't think we've been trying to do that for the past 20 years. Look we spent 2 first round picks in 10 years on the offensive line. To be the team that went to 4 Superbowls on the backs on the Hogs and to try and patch together a "decent" not "dominant" offensive line over the years has come back to kill us over and over again. First round picks during our superbowl run were a thing we weren't used to actually using. During that time we only used 3 first round picks and traded the others. This regime decided to jump in the pool with the other minnows and tried to build a team of primarily defensive first rounders and threatens to make the same mistake this year that's never shown to work for us.

Well, we had a very good OL in the late-1990s and mid-2000s...probably top-10 in the league. Also, when you talk about the Hogs, weren't they made up of a bunch of players who were pieced together? I know we spent a first-round pick on Mark May, but wasn't that it?

During our Superbowl runs we didn't refuse to learn from our past mistakes, we learned from them and got better all the time, yet most here including the fanbase thinks that we can continue to ignore the offensive line, ignore our receiving group, ignore talent and scout evaluation to figure out how a draft like the 2008 draft went so poorly for us. About the only thing as a team we've shown any interest in from our superbowl runs over the years is finding that offensive minded coach that Gibbs was in the 1980's.

So, you don't believe that our decision-makers are TRYING to field a great team? What is your take on what they are TRYING to do?

The problem is without the ability to put together a team one piece isn't enough. If we want to find success again we need to look at the offensive line and rebuild the Hogs first, not last. Without the Hogs the 1980's decade team doesn't happen. the 1980's Defense was impressive but wouldn't have won anything on that alone. Our receiving group was impressive in the 1980's but never would have won anything without the Hogs. The Hogs and our play calling were so dominate that it allowed us to take any RB or any QB we used and they were productive.

I agree. But again, that OL wasn't a bunch of high draft picks and we've had two very good OLs in two different "eras" since then.

Yet here we are again with one solid starter (Williams), 1 possible player who we haven't signed to a contract extension that could possibly be a second starter for years (Brown), and three players we need to replace and find starters. Yet who are we looking at now according to some posters in the know? Defensive players. For us it doesn't work that way. If we just want to be mediocre with no championships then we've shown that's the way to go. If we want to go to the elite we need to be discussing offensive linemen, QB's, and WR's and create an offense that no team can stop like the 1991 team.

Why does it matter that we're looking for D in the first round? The Hogs were made up of one 1st round draft pick, two undrafted FAs, a 3rd round draft pick, and an 11th round draft pick. Later additions included one more first round draft pick (though not ours) and a tenth round draft pick. So, we addressed OL, but not necessarily early in the draft.

We are stuck in a rut and continue to repeat the same old mistakes over and over yet not too many people are talking about this. We have paved a road of success, yet we ignore it. That's what I mean by our past is a curse. If you just learn from it and repeat it success will come. If you ignore it and try and find success based on what other teams have done then we will continue to fail. I wonder why failure is even an option for us or why the fanbase thinks it sounds so good all the time? Our past is a curse and a blessing, its great we went to 4 Superbowls in 10 years. It's terrible that 20 years removed from it that we forgot how we got there in the first place

So, again I still ask...how did the glory years in the 1980s pave the way for success? All you've still added is that we have to have a great OL, but you haven't answered HOW to do that. I'll maintain my opinion that every team in the league is TRYING to accomplish that. If there really was a simple blueprint, we'd have continued to win Super Bowls. There isn't. It just comes down to building your team (all the positions you mentioned and all the ones you didn't) with a good mix of drafting, free agency, and trades.

[JPCreativelab]

I use the comparative number of arrests and convictions for drug offenses and domestic violence. Seems to work.

great book

[aamiha73]

I've thought about this from time to time. On one hand it's true, the Redskins have won championships. On the other hand it's been a long time since they've won them. I feel like I can't say too much in the way of trash talk due to the franchises' struggles, or, I can't be the aggressor let's say, in going out of my way to put someone elses team down. But if I was in the cross hairs of a certain belligerent Eagle fan, their empty trophy case is sort of an ace in the hole. Ultimately, they have none. Period. If they want to start up they can. They've had a competitive team for a while now. Kudos. But they've still never, ever been the best team in the league.

[addicted]

Well, we had a very good OL in the late-1990s and mid-2000s...probably top-10 in the league. Also, when you talk about the Hogs, weren't they made up of a bunch of players who were pieced together? I know we spent a first-round pick on Mark May, but wasn't that it?

The late 1990's team was on the road to finding success because of the line despite the ownership turnover. We were going in the right direction, Steven Davis was running hard and breaking the teams rushing season record in 1999, Brad Johnson was breaking records for us completing 316 passes in a season, and the 2000 draft started off great with us selecting Chris Samuals then we broke down as an organization and started in on the "drafting Defensive players" in the first round debacle that's carried us for the past 10 years and likely to screw us again this year. Snyder gave up on something that was working because it wasn't "flashy" enough and started the coaching carousel and player turnover that sunk that ship. In 1999 we went to the playoffs for the first time since our last Superbowl season and even won the Wild Card game then it all went in the wrong direction and continues to go that way today. If you want to blame someone for taking 3 steps backwards when it seemed as if we were on the right path then look no further then his ownership. The late 1990's team was on the right track then he derailed the train. The fact that we had a dominate line and were doing those things only proves what I'm saying is right not wrong.

As for the round selection of the Hogs while we didn't use many first rounders on that position the fact is for 10 years we only selected 3 total players in the round. I'm not sure what your meaning is about the relation to the draft. Mark May was a first rounder, Russ Grimm was a third rounder, Don Warren was a fourth rounder, Rick "Doc" Walker was a fourth rounder, and Jim Lachey was a first rounder. We got incredibly lucky with Jeff Bostic and Joe Jacoby because those men were undrafted but that was more fortune smiling on us then it was skill in picking them up. If you know the secret to finding guys like that who go undrafted please share. And if your saying we don't need a great offensive line to win then I'd love to see a Redskins team that won without one. Please share this wisdom you've got on the matter

So, you don't believe that our decision-makers are TRYING to field a great team? What is your take on what they are TRYING to do?

Let me put it like this...If I took you on a hike in search of gold and told you that the place you wanted to go was easiest to reach by taking the "right" path then I've told you the way to go to find the gold but it's eventually up to you to choose your own path. If you decided to take another direction to try and find it because you felt it was the "best direction possible" that your decision. But if it doesn't work out for you then you know why. You know the path to take but if you refuse to take it because you think your smarter. If after such time of you seeing it not work shouldn't at some point you decide to take the right path?

I think the player selection has been screwed for a long long long time. Do they intentionally want to fail? I doubt it. They just under value the importance of a dominate offensive line and think that since the Ravens won because of a dominate defense that it can be done that way. It can be done, it's just not likely to ever happen. If building a franchise based on Defense meant winning championships then wouldn't the Ravens have more then one Superbowl title? Look at the dominate teams over the years and you'll see the same things like I mentioned. But I don't care about what "worked" for other teams. I care about this team and I see what worked for us in the past. We should spend a grip of money and ensure our offensive line is the best in the league. We showed in the age of Joe Montana and Dan Marino that you can be an elite team, a dynasty, if your line is dominate. Yet we want to follow the Ravens path to success? Why? The Ravens won one championship. The Redskins won 3 and lost 1. Why anyone chooses to draft defensive players when you don't have an offensive line is beyond my level of comprehension? Maybe they did that to sell jerseys? I have no idea but I do believe that's a great way of sucking every year like we have. To me it's putting the cart before the horse. We don't need to emulate the Ravens, we need to be emulating the Redskins. The championship teams began in 1982 behind the Hogs. During those playoffs Riggins ran the ball 37 times for 185 yards against Minnesota, 36 times for 140 yards against Dallas in the NFC Championship game, and 38 times for 166 yards against Miami in Super Bowl XVII. After that it was Redskins time. Is it wrong for a Redskins fan to want that again?

I agree. But again, that OL wasn't a bunch of high draft picks and we've had two very good OLs in two different "eras" since then.

I would like you to compare the Hogs with any other offensive line group we've ever had and show us if you think that anything resembling the Hogs has been here since the early 1990's? A "good line" isn't the Hogs. The Hogs were great. If you think that we've had a "great line" since the Hogs then I want you to convince me of it. I've never seen anything like it since the 1991 season.

Why does it matter that we're looking for D in the first round? The Hogs were made up of one 1st round draft pick, two undrafted FAs, a 3rd round draft pick, and an 11th round draft pick. Later additions included one more first round draft pick (though not ours) and a tenth round draft pick. So, we addressed OL, but not necessarily early in the draft.

Because in the age of Free Agency how many of these other teams players do you see available to us that could create the next group of the Hogs, the next Franchise QB, the next Hall of Fame WR? Did I ever say to ignore everything but the offensive line? No. I said we need to be discussing WR's, QB's, and Offensive linemen. Where do you see all of these dominate offensive players available? The draft. That's why it matters we want to be idiotic AGAIN and go defense in the draft. That doesn't work for us.

Building a team based on Defense doesn't win you a championship if your the Redskins. It might if your another team, but not us. It won the Ravens one title. We had a dominant offensive line and switched out QB's, RB's, WR's, and the offensive still rolled on. Without an offensive line your offense will never reach any of its potential. None of your RB's, QB's, or offensive players will reach potential without a good offensive line.

And the rules of the league dictate today more then any other time that to win you must have an offense that can score points. Wonder why we don't score many points? Because our line sucks, our WR's aren't as good as other teams, our QB'ing has sucked. Going defense again in the draft will screw the offense yet again. We are repeating the same old mistakes over and over again and your hung up on the round selection it seems and ignoring the damage we caused ourselves by going Defense in the first round for years. How did it work out drafting Taylor, Rogers, and Landry? We win anything doing that? Nope. And we won't until we have an offensive line, a QB, and a WR

So, again I still ask...how did the glory years in the 1980s pave the way for success? All you've still added is that we have to have a great OL, but you haven't answered HOW to do that. I'll maintain my opinion that every team in the league is TRYING to accomplish that. If there really was a simple blueprint, we'd have continued to win Super Bowls. There isn't. It just comes down to building your team (all the positions you mentioned and all the ones you didn't) with a good mix of drafting, free agency, and trades.

I'll agree with you that this is a four pronged approach to winning, you forgot coaching. I won't agree with you that drafting defensively today while ignoring the positions I mentioned earlier - QB/WR/Offensive Line - is at all a good thing to do. You want to know how to do this? Simple. Get a dominant offensive line, get a young QB to develop, find that stud WR. We need all of these things and the last thing that we need to do is to ignore then another year so we can try and be the Ravens.

That won't ever work, we've proved it and your one of those people that I wonder why in the hell you want to continue to see this team suck next year and in the future. We've tried your approach. We've tried Snyders approach, none of that works for us. It's time to get back to Redskins football. We need to address the offensive positions instead of worrying about the Defensive side of the ball. I would think most would be sick of the 3 point games, all of the games were we can't score 20 points, and all of the years of the offense sucking while the Defense does a great job and still loses. 6 of our losses last season were by 3 points or less. That's on the offense and just shows we can't get it done on that side of the ball yet or on the kicker since that piece of crap missed 4 game winning FG's but that's another topic

[Darth Tater]

No but its stupid. Only losers bring up anything as trash talk that happened before any of the current players were in the NFL. The moment you do, you've just confirmed you are an idiot.

[pjfootballer]

Our biggest problem as a team has been the inability to adapt our past successes with our present teams. If we adopted a more productive approach that worked for us in the 80's...strong defense, one of the best offensive lines, great receiving group, clever offensive game plans....we'd likely have a winning team again. Our past is a blessing and a curse. We know how we won in the past but can't seem to replicate it. I blame that on the people in the organization who choose not to follow the successful winning formula and instead of concentrating on those areas decided to play the same game other teams were using. Our Superbowls are important but it's a curse because until we go back to what worked for us we can't expect winning seasons. We know the way to win, we just don't know how to evaluate personnel to make the new Hogs, the new Posse, or the new dominating defense.

Sometimes I believe we should have stuck with an organizational philosophy much like the Steelers have. They continue to stress a rough, strong defense coupled with a strong ground game. Now, I know we can't replicate "Riggo Drill" in 2011, but If we could stick with a philosophy for the organization, we can get back to where we used to be.

What's the point of all of this then?

Who cares who wins the Superbowl? We've won 3. Hell yeah I'm going to brag about it. Why? Cause I cheered for those (well at least 2 of those) like I cheered for my teams last game against the Giants.

If you can't brag, what's the ****ing point?

I was 14 when we won our first. I witnessed all 3 firsthand. I agree, I should have bragging rights.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

addicted, I think we're getting too far down in the weeds. Let me address my main point of contention with your opinion...

What, in your opinion, is the right path toward "addressing QB/WR/OL"? You mentioned the Hogs and I illustrated that only two guys in 10 years came early in the draft, yet you seem to believe that we need to address OL early in the draft. You mention in your "finding gold" analogy that you'd point me in one direction and, if I went the other way, it's a bad decision. But what I'm asking you is what is that "right direction" that you are proposing to "get a dominant offensive line, get a young QB to develop, find that stud WR?"

We've tried to do that through the years in the draft (Shuler, Campbell, Ramsey, Westbrook, Gardner, Thomas, Kelly, etc.), in free agency (Randy Thomas, Dockery, etc.), and via trades (Lloyd, Moss, Kendall, etc.). What I'm asking isn't what your approach is, but how do you propose that they do it any differently than any other team? Everyone in the league is attempting to do what you're proposing. Very few teams (if any) probably go into their brainstorming sessions looking to win despite a bad OL or a bad, veteran QB, or weak WRs, etc.

I'm not trying to harp on you, I just think your point is the equivalent of me saying that the Redskins should build a Super Bowl roster and that's the ticket to more championships. It's true, but not exactly enlightening.

[Commander PK]

I grew up during the glory years, and I'm proud of all the team accomplished during that time. Heck, the Super Bowl loss to the Raiders to this day still bothers me, because I think the Redskins would have surpassed the 49ers as the team of the decade had they won that game.

With that said, I'm beyond ready for some new "glory years." I think the team for the first time since Gibbs retired the first time, is truly headed in the right direction as an organization.

[HLF]

No but its stupid. Only losers bring up anything as trash talk that happened before any of the current players were in the NFL. The moment you do, you've just confirmed you are an idiot.

We have been losers for awhile now :doh: Would be worse to be losers and have never won anything.

[addicted]

Sometimes I believe we should have stuck with an organizational philosophy much like the Steelers have. They continue to stress a rough, strong defense coupled with a strong ground game. Now, I know we can't replicate "Riggo Drill" in 2011, but If we could stick with a philosophy for the organization, we can get back to where we used to be.

I couldn't agree with you more. The Steelers know Steerler football and have rode that winning formula to many playoff runs. This is exactly what we must do. Embrace our historic past, create a new era of "Redskins" football, and dare the rest of the league to stop us. The thing people don't understand is that what works for one team won't work for another. We are all different. We shouldn't try and emulate any other team but our own. That starts by embracing the success of the past, working on the present to get that again, and if done right the future is bright. We have our own method of success and the sooner we get back to that the sooner we will be good again

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I do agree that there needs to be an organizational philosophy above the coaching level. That's been our biggest weakness since our glory years, we've changed identities with every new coach. That leads to having a roster full of misfits. The organization should have a certain type of coach and player that it looks for and should stick to that. Personally, that's why I believe the Steelers have seamless transitions whether they're switching to a new OLB, RB, QB, or head coach.

[phishisthegreatstuff]

I use it all the the time on ealges fans... but thats pretty much all you can use it against. Cowboys have 5, Giants have 3. I get a high off a reg season win I cant imagine the feeling of winning a super bowl... Hopefully 2011 is the yr!!!

[Skins-Canes-Mounties]

As a fan, I use the lifetime test. If it happened in my lifetime, it is relevant. If it happened before, it is nice, but it isn't as important.

Your career as a fan is a lifetime gig, so your fandom will outlast all players' careers. It might not be as strong of an argument that it has been 19 years since our last SB, but it is still important.

That's just my 2 cents. Others might differ.

[addicted]

What, in your opinion, is the right path toward "addressing QB/WR/OL"? You mentioned the Hogs and I illustrated that only two guys in 10 years came early in the draft, yet you seem to believe that we need to address OL early in the draft.

Your way way too hung up on where the Hogs were drafted. You do realize that we spent only 3 first round picks during our 10 year run right? And your not even understanding or admitting to yourself three simple things:

1. If we didn't get lucky with those lower or undrafted players you nor I have any idea if we would have spent more then we did to build our offensive line. We do know how important it was to our success so its reasonable to think if we didn't get lucky like we did we would have spent more money on that position then we did

2. The offensive line was the most important position on the championship teams. We can also say with certainty that we've never had another Hogs team here since the 1980's and without that we've never won anything

3. The draft is the best place to find future stars in the league.

The way I see this is this is the third time I've mentioned what I would do and your not getting it. The draft needs to address the offensive line, the QB, and the WR position. I sure wouldn't mind it if we spent our first round pick on any of those positions because they are more important to our future success then any other on the opposite side of the ball. And I'm not saying something like this

"I just think your point is the equivalent of me saying that the Redskins should build a Super Bowl roster"

Which I thinks pretty ignorant because I've pin pointed where we should spend money and picks and you seem to not understand the words I'm typing or something. Your point is equivalently this..

"Forget our past and build a Defense. It will turn us into winners"

When we've done that over and over again and didn't produce anything. And doing that doesn't fix our continued problems on offense. Why do you support another year ignoring the offense especially the WR, the Line, the QB positions? We've done your approach for years, what did it get us? Why mention this:

We've tried to do that through the years in the draft (Shuler, Campbell, Ramsey, Westbrook, Gardner, Thomas, Kelly, etc.), in free agency (Randy Thomas, Dockery, etc.), and via trades (Lloyd, Moss, Kendall, etc.).

What point would it be for me to mention the many more failures on Defense we've either drafted or brought in via Free Agency? Do you want to get into a Jeremiah Trotter, Dana Stubblefield, Adam Archuleta, Deion Sanders debate with me? If so you lose. The worst Free Agents we've brought in were on Defense. Much more so then what we brought in on the offense. But say your right and drafting defense is the right thing to do. I present you our most recent drafts and where the player played that was our first selection (round drafted in ():

2010 - Offense (1st)

2009 - Defense (1st)

2008 - Offense (2nd)

2007 - Defense (1st)

2006 - Defense (2nd)

2005 - Defense (1st)

2004 - Defense (1st)

5-2 clip we went Defense with our first selection and what exactly do we have to show for that? Why are you arguing that we need to continue making the same stupid mistakes when it's never produced anything?

[pjfootballer]

I do agree that there needs to be an organizational philosophy above the coaching level. That's been our biggest weakness since our glory years, we've changed identities with every new coach. That leads to having a roster full of misfits. The organization should have a certain type of coach and player that it looks for and should stick to that. Personally, that's why I believe the Steelers have seamless transitions whether they're switching to a new OLB, RB, QB, or head coach.

Well, I'm hoping that Shanahan is going to develop a certain philosophy. He likes to run the ball, but I'm foggy on his philosophy on the passing game and defense.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't know why you've assigned me the role of being pro-defense in the draft. I haven't once stated that I think we should draft defense in the first round this year.

My main point has always been that I don't see how any team has a different philosophy from what you're stating (get good at QB/OL/WR). All teams want very good players everywhere. However, I do see now that you're essentially saying that we need to draft primarily at those positions (I apologize for not catching that earlier in the thread...we've both had some long posts). I'm still of the mindset that we have to acquire players by any measure possible (draft, FA, or trades) and that there doesn't need to be such a distinct method.

For example, if we're in the second round (assuming we drafted a stud QB in the first round) and there's a great value NT on the board and a good value OG on the board, would you say we always pick the OL even though both are huge areas of need and the NT might be a better value?

[flock53]

I trash my uncle all the time when he talks of the 1st 2 SBs GB won and all the multiple championships before that. I tell him they dont count cause there were only like 6 teams

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Well, I'm hoping that Shanahan is going to develop a certain philosophy. He likes to run the ball, but I'm foggy on his philosophy on the passing game and defense.

I hope so too...but I think it should be above his level (unless he intends to stick around as just the VP after he's done coaching). I think having the coach define that identity is part of our problem of the past decade. We had Marty stuck with Norv players, Spurrier stuck with Norv and Marty players, and Gibbs stuck with Norv, Marty, and Spurrier players, etc. If we had someone at the GM level who knew the type of coaches and players we wanted as an organization (let's say that GM thought the Norv model was the best) then we'd have hired a coach that was similar to Norv and the players we had would be fits for his philosophy.

[addicted]

I don't know why you've assigned me the role of being pro-defense in the draft. I haven't once stated that I think we should draft defense in the first round this year.

Probably because you've assigned me the same label of must draft offensive linemen in the first round which I've never said either and insisted on pointing out the failures on offense yet not on Defense in your last post. Seems to me that you and I are on different sides of the fence here

My main point has always been that I don't see how any team has a different philosophy from what you're stating (get good at QB/OL/WR). All teams want very good players everywhere. However, I do see now that you're essentially saying that we need to draft primarily at those positions (I apologize for not catching that earlier in the thread...we've both had some long posts). I'm still of the mindset that we have to acquire players by any measure possible (draft, FA, or trades) and that there doesn't need to be such a distinct method.

You must have missed it when I said the answer to this. The answer is we need to spend money on fixing the Redskins with the "Redskins" model. Not to use any other teams model. We have a history of success and the sooner that becomes present success the sooner we will compete for championships. Those three first rounders during the Superbowl runs...Drafted Art Monk (WR), Darrell Green (CB), and Mark May (Offensive Line) showed me what the team thought it needed for winning. We needed a dominant offensive line, we got that. We needed a good Defense, we got that. We needed a stud WR, and got that too. We spent our money on building a bad ass offense, supplemented with a good defense. We didn't have a Ravens crushing style of Defense and then supplement that with a good offense. Yet we are spending too much money doing it the "Ravens" way and not the "Redskins" way. It's all about an approach that I want to see us take. I want the entire league to know even with a great defensive line we will protect our QB and dominate them. That is Redskins football. Redskins football isn't dominate teams with a crushing Defense. The philosophy is our future starts at the trenches and we will always have a dominating offensive line and powerful offense.

For example, if we're in the second round (assuming we drafted a stud QB in the first round) and there's a great value NT on the board and a good value OG on the board, would you say we always pick the OL even though both are huge areas of need and the NT might be a better value?

Great vs. Good....why not a Great OG and a Great NT? Seems to me you want to steer this towards a BPA argument which is what we've done for years and never found success with. It's "BPA" that keeps us drafting defensively and steers us away from Redskins football

As for your question...For this team I would pick the great OG since we need one badly and have Bryant who showed up at the end of the year who can play NT. Unfortunately we ended the year with Kory Lichtensteiger and Will Montgomery as our starting Guards and they aren't going to get the job done. Wouldn't you agree?

[Destino]

So I find it kind of strange that whenever I bring up the argument about teams not having any Super Bowl victories, they feel the need to bring up that the Skins was so long ago it doesnt matter. Is this true in your opinion? Isnt the big one the only thing that matters whether it was in 1973 or in 2005?

I don't think the big one is the only thing that matters. I don't know if I'd have had this opinion when the skins were winning titles but after nearly two decades of misery I can say for certain that it sure as hell isn't the only thing that matters. My team has been a league JOKE for far too long and pointing to a page in history doesn't change that. All it means is that way back when... the skins weren't a laughingstock.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I must have misrepresented your point of view...so I'm sorry about that.

Great vs. Good....why not a Great OG and a Great NT? Seems to me you want to steer this towards a BPA argument which is what we've done for years and never found success with. It's "BPA" that keeps us drafting defensively and steers us away from Redskins football

Well, great OG vs. great NT would then come down to what position is a bigger need. That's something that the coaches certainly have documented somewhere so, to them at least, it would be a no-brainer. I skewed it to good vs. great on purpose...to see if you'd still want to pick a good OL (position of need) over a great NT (position of need) per your model. So, I'm curious if you spend all your top picks at those 3 positions you listed even if it might mean that you're upgrading your overall team slightly less than you could?

As for your question...For this team I would pick the great OG since we need one badly and have Bryant who showed up at the end of the year who can play NT. Unfortunately we ended the year with Kory Lichtensteiger and Will Montgomery as our starting Guards and they aren't going to get the job done. Wouldn't you agree?

And that's what I was looking for...thank you! I would only agree if the coaches believe Bryant is a starting-caliber NT. And, if he is, that would be fantastic by the way. If they see him as depth, I would take the guy who is going to provide the biggest upgrade. So, let's say we have the following grades assigned to the relevant players:

Lichtensteiger: 4/10

Montgomery: 5/10

2nd-round Guard: 8/10 (good)

Bryant: 5/10

2nd-round NT: 10/10 (great)

I think I'd take the NT in order to give yourself the biggest improvement at a position of need. So, I guess I'm arguing for BPA within positions of need, not just a straight BPA since I don't want to see any RBs or TEs drafted early on. But, I don't weigh offense any heavier than defense or vice versa.

[addicted]

I must have misrepresented your point of view...so I'm sorry about that.

No problem, think I'm guilty of the same and I'm sorry as well

Well, great OG vs. great NT would then come down to what position is a bigger need. That's something that the coaches certainly have documented somewhere so, to them at least, it would be a no-brainer. I skewed it to good vs. great on purpose...to see if you'd still want to pick a good OL (position of need) over a great NT (position of need) per your model. So, I'm curious if you spend all your top picks at those 3 positions you listed even if it might mean that you're upgrading your overall team slightly less than you could?

I know you did, I catch stuff like that.

The question would come down to this...it depends. There is no clear cut answer to this question.

And that's what I was looking for...thank you! I would only agree if the coaches believe Bryant is a starting-caliber NT. And, if he is, that would be fantastic by the way. If they see him as depth, I would take the guy who is going to provide the biggest upgrade. So, let's say we have the following grades assigned to the relevant players:

Lichtensteiger: 4/10

Montgomery: 5/10

2nd-round Guard: 8/10 (good)

Bryant: 5/10

2nd-round NT: 10/10 (great)

I think I'd take the NT in order to give yourself the biggest improvement at a position of need.

And you'd be right to do that. Taking an 8/10 player over a perfect scored 10 player in your example would only make sense if we had no one to play that 8/10 position. But we know from your example we do have someone to play there. So if this was the case you got to take the NT

However reality is this. Your more likely to see an 8/10 player vs an 8/10 player. No one's a perfect 10/10. And second round grades are about the same. So in your example if you change the NT to 8/10 then you could upgrade a 4/10 to an 8/10 if you take the OG (+4) or upgrade the NT but only get a +3 going from a 5/10 to an 8/10. If your taking BPA then you'd have to take the OG there. Not to mention I do believe an upgrade on the offensive line is going to help this team much more then if we got a stud NT.

So, I guess I'm arguing for BPA within positions of need, not just a straight BPA since I don't want to see any RBs or TEs drafted early on. But, I don't weigh offense any heavier than defense or vice versa.

I agree in part but lean much more towards the makeup of your team and that changes every single year. This year I believe we have more needs on the offensive side of the football then we do on the other side of the ball so this year I think our best moves in the draft would be to address the QB, WR, and Offensive line positions. I attribute that to several things but one of them I'll mention and that is to look at who is making the decisions. Shannahan has much more success in the draft with drafting offense vs drafting defense. To me you simply can't ignore that. If there is turnover in the coaching staff sometime in the future I think it would benefit our team much more long term that we use Shanahan's strength here then to rely on his weakness.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's a good point about his drafting success rates...I had not considered that. Hopefully though, we have someone within the organization who could pick out some good defenders. Though I'd agree that we have some holes on offense (obviously), I'm certainly not comfortable with what we have on defense given where we ended up last year.

I think NT is a higher-impact position. So, if everything was equal in our little hypothetical (meaning if the upgrade was exactly the same at both positions), I'd probably take NT over OG in that specific case. I might change my mind if it was OT vs. NT though.

[addicted]

That's a good point about his drafting success rates...I had not considered that. Hopefully though, we have someone within the organization who could pick out some good defenders.

We do, every team has a scouting department however it's one thing to have a scout who "could" find a player, as in it's possible, but another to have the track record that Shannahan has for offensive players. Even with a possibility to find a player it's difficult for me to look at the team thinking anything other then the best interest for this year and future seasons with us under this leadership is to build the Offense now while we have an offensive guru running the show. The reason you build this now is the same reason you implement the 3-4 last year instead of later. One you need experience in it to run it well. Two in terms of the QB you don't want that player starting right away. And three the offense isn't something you fix in one season.

Though I'd agree that we have some holes on offense (obviously), I'm certainly not comfortable with what we have on defense given where we ended up last year.

It takes time for any 4-3 to 3-4 transition to occur. We will be better next year on Defense regardless of any players we add simply because of experience in the system. We played better at the end of the year then we did playing in the middle of the season. Regardless of our "ranking" which is a total joke in my opinion, even if that rank jumped 10 positions it doesn't answer any of the problems we have on offense. Fixing the defense won't help the offense and fixing the offense is the only way to win more games. Last year we lost those 6 out of 10 games by 3 or less points. We need to address the offense so that doesn't happen next season.

So like I've been saying this whole time...we aren't doing anything other then the same old **** in a different year. If on the other hand instead of doing as you want and try to build up a young defense with no offense in place the thing we should do is build up a great offense before we build up the defense. If we build up a great offense we will be in every game and then once the offense is built we can build the defense. It doesn't make any sense to me to continue doing the stupid things with our draft picks and money when its shown it doesn't work for this team or fit the coaching staff we have now or the problems of the team. I'm sorry that you think some NT is going to turn this franchise around. We've been there (look up biggest Redskins FA busts) and it doesn't work like you think.

Guess we've come full circle. I'm repeating myself and this isn't getting anywhere. It really does baffle my mind how a Redskins fan could think like you do with out past, present, and future. I don't get it. Feeling bad feels good to you I guess