(March, 2011) Hey, Mike. You're Losing Me, Man.

[The Tris]

So on the lowest and most optimistic end of the spectrum, the average age of our starters in 2011 will be 27.2 years old.

On the highest and least optimistic end, the average age will be 28.7 years old.

My guess is that the total will be somewhere in between those two numbers. That's a fairly old roster and not a young core to be building around a 22 year old drafted QB.

The average NFL roster is 27.2 years old. We have gone from the oldest roster in the NFL to an average aged roster in just over one full year (two drafts).

A few good links:

2009 Function Ages: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/how-to-measure-team-age-in-the-n-f-l-and-what-it-means-for-2010/

2010 Age changes: http://www.csnwashington.com/12/15/10/Redskins-work-to-get-younger-/landing.html?blockID=374036&feedID=6355

[Skinsinparadise]

As for the posts about us not rebuilding, based on the dates of the posts am assuming they are new ones. But yeah to take out of this draft that they are going for the quick short term fix to me -- wow!

IMO it would imply when he kept on trading down and adding all those late round picks in particular -- is because we all know 5th and 7th rounders aren't development projects that you develop for the future but are instead akin to quick fix veterans. And yeah he is going the McNabb route again essentially by spending big money for another big time QB who is past his prime in Beck is further proof he is in a win now mode.

Him releasing veterans like Portis, Carter, and Dockery are further proof to wanting a veteran win now team -- if he releases Daniels next now that they have J. Jenkins -- it would be the kicker it would smack just like Jason Taylor trade. To further complicate things ignore Chris Russell's twitter comments after talking to someone in the Redskins FO post draft who said that they still have ways to go and their goal is to be like the Eagles and Patriots, getting younger and playing with more picks -- the proof is in the pudding, and yeah 12 picks is nothing and shows no inclination at all that its truly their intention.

Actually in all seriousness, I've said in some of these debates my theory is:

1. Oldfan is right that they were going for the kill short term last year

2. Oldfan is right that the way to rebuild a team long-term is to use a long term perspective and mainly don't trade picks away and use the draft

3. Oldfan is right that Qb's thrive when they have a good supporting cast -- not so much when they don't.

I thought Oldfan was wrong here (and I said this before the draft):

1. While Shanny went for the quick fix, I did feel that he got it after this season (some of his rhetoric alluded right to it) that this team has a long way to go and he would shift his approach. It's practically conventional wisdom that if you don't have the talent and are getting old, you need to do an overhaul, I don't think Shanny is a dummy where conventional wisdom that's obvious to lay people like us, escapes him. Nor do i think his ego is so large that he's delusional about what he has and what he can do with this team. Been there done that last season. Yes, smart people learn from their mistakes. If your ego leads you down the wrong road where you make the same mistake twice, IMO you aren't that smart.

2. He is clearly trying get younger and rebuild, he started towards the end of last season. And he is building a supporting cast -- that maybe perfect for John Beck if he plays well this year -- or if not for the Qb of the future. I've complemented Oldfan on this thread and am sticking to it but I do predict that Oldfan will go in spin mode against Shanny because he doesn't like him as coach, and that's fair. But I do think this draft puts a monkey wrench in his theory.

3. I pointed out previously, taking a veteran or two and saying this disproves that rebuilding is going on -- pretty much shoots down ALL teams as having true rebuilds. Yeah the Rams sign guys like Fred Robbins, Lions sign veteran guys. I've not seen an absolute pristine, no veteran acquisition rebuild or if it happens its pretty rare. If you hold the Redskins to those standards they don't rebuild or for that matter does any team in the NFL.

[Gator Bait]

stevemcqueen....I'm not going to go through and quote all the things I disagree with in your response to my post....because I disagree with all of it besides the fact that Pioli is a legit GM (who learned the game from Belichek) and is doing well w/ the cheifs.

As someone else pointed out, we've gotten rid of lots of old, overpayed/over the hill players like Portis and Carter and we already brought in 12 new young guys to compete for roster spots. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that at least 7 of these guys make the 53 man roster.

DBs: anything under 30 is young for a DB, 3/4 of our DBs are under 30

Both OLB are young (Orakpo and Kerrigan)

Lots of people expect that NT from FSU to have an impact in his first season as well as Jenkins.

Receivers: 3 receivers from the draft, Armstrong, Kelly, Banks, Austin: all under 30 (which I believe to be young for receivers)

Torain, Royster, Helu, Williams: all very young

many young Olineman including Williams, Litch, Montgomery, Hurt, two guys that were on practice squad from last years draft, which will likely be competing for roster spots next year.

I'm just doing this from the top of my head..I didn't even look at our roster and ages....but I think Shanny has done an outstanding job with the turnover of our roster the past year.....we haven't even hit free agency yet, which will provide us for more opportunity to bring in some young impact players.

[Skinsinparadise]

The young talent we're adding are end of the roster types who, if they make the team, will end up replacing the other young talent we've got on the team (also end of the roster types).

The only significant every down starters we've got who'll be under 27 this season are Brian Orakpo, Trent Williams, Ryan Harris (if we sign him), Ryan Kerrigan, and whichever of Robert Henson or Perry Riley ends up winning the starting job. Maybe Hankerson joins that group, maybe he doesn't, but he's the only other one you can realistically count on to become an every down starter from the young talent we've got on the team.

That's not much of a core. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it very slowly because we've only added 4 or 5 significant long term pieces in two offseasons and we haven't begun to seriously address the QB position yet.

You are making presumptions that guys like Philip Daniels will stay and guys like Jarmon will be out the door. Maybe. But that's a big presumption and seems counter intuitive based on some of the recent moves. It's possible but its IMO at least 50/50 possible to be wrong, too. Seems like your other presumption is that it was a bad draft, and I've seen you make that point on other threads, you seem flat out angry about the picks. That's fair. But again that doesn't connote a philosophy of win now. Its just you think these guys will fail or many of them will. For me I got no clue, will see. We know that Shanny didn't make these picks because he thought they were stinkers and wouldn't make the roster or have a shot to be starting players -- especially coming from a guy that found good starters in the 4th thru 7th round especially in his last three years in Denver. To me going for the short term fix would be holding on to your 2nd rounder and picking a more marquee player than reaching down to the lower rounds.

To me this smelled like what 3 different draft geek web sites alluded to (heck even Mcshay said the same) which is we might have the worst roster in the NFL, and it badly needed an overhaul. This for me, and countless others, didn't smack of a short term fix, go for the kill this year. Chris Russell from 980 who i like and seems to be plugged in at times, flat out said on the radio and twitter that someone from their FO knows they aren't close to being a great team. Maybe he's full of crap who knows.

[Going Commando]

The average NFL roster is 27.2 years old. We have gone from the oldest roster in the NFL to an average aged roster in just over one full year (two drafts).

A few good links:

2009 Function Ages: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/how-to-measure-team-age-in-the-n-f-l-and-what-it-means-for-2010/

2010 Age changes: http://www.csnwashington.com/12/15/10/Redskins-work-to-get-younger-/landing.html?blockID=374036&feedID=6355

The 5th down article is fascinating and is an interesting point I hadn't thought of.

When (if?) we finally draft and start a QB, our functional age will go down on offense.

Unfortunately, I think the evidence presented in those articles makes it clear our roster is not the product of an FO conducting a rebuild. Our tier is filled with good teams in annual contention and crappy teams going nowhere.

Most of the bad teams on the rise are all near the youngest end of the spectrum: Tampa Bay, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit.

[GetWrecked]

Most of the bad teams on the rise are all near the youngest end of the spectrum: Tampa Bay, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit.

Yep, and those teams have had years of picking at the top of rounds, not trading away countless picks for vets and signing high contract free agents to take spots of those late round draft picks. It's a proven philosophy that works. The time it takes just depends on who is running the personnel and scouting departments. Hopefully this passed draft was a changing of the guard for our organization.

[TheGoodBits]

The 5th down article is fascinating and is an interesting point I hadn't thought of.

When (if?) we finally draft and start a QB, our functional age will go down on offense.

Unfortunately, I think the evidence presented in those articles makes it clear our roster is not the product of an FO conducting a rebuild. Our tier is filled with good teams in annual contention and crappy teams going nowhere.

Most of the bad teams on the rise are all near the youngest end of the spectrum: Tampa Bay, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit.

Well as much as we like to think we can just snap our fingers and make the roster ridiculous young for the full rebuild, realistically you can't replace everyone at once. We're trending young big time right now, and replacing guys at key positions. Next year should be the year for the QB. We'll continue to get good, young players and build the team with the QB of the future.

We are in a rebuild, just the early stages of it. Should have started last year, but Shanahan wanted to try to win. That was a mistake that he's starting to fix now.

[The Tris]

Well as much as we like to think we can just snap our fingers and make the roster ridiculous young for the full rebuild, realistically you can't replace everyone at once. We're trending young big time right now, and replacing guys at key positions. Next year should be the year for the QB. We'll continue to get good, young players and build the team with the QB of the future.

We are in a rebuild, just the early stages of it. Should have started last year, but Shanahan wanted to try to win. That was a mistake that he's starting to fix now.

Atlanta, Detroit, Tampa, KC, and St Louis all massively overhauled their roster year one. It wasn't magic, it was commitment.

Unfortunately, we have refused to commit fully to a rebuild, and wasted our first year on the McNabb fiasco, and will counter this years positive draft with a heavy dose of free agency.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 08:00 PM ----------

Though if we consider this Year One of a rebuild process, one could argue that we are following the 2009 Rams path (of those teams, the only one to not acquire a young QB to build around Year One).

So it is not a forgone conclusion that we cant have success rebuilding without a franchise passer to build around from the get go.

[Going Commando]

Though if we consider this Year One of a rebuild process, one could argue that we are following the 2009 Rams path (of those teams, the only one to not acquire a young QB to build around Year One).

So it is not a forgone conclusion that we cant have success rebuilding without a franchise passer to build around from the get go.

The Rams are an interesting case. They passed on drafting a potential franchise QB in the first year of their new regime in order to take a LT but seemed to get "lucky" by being horrible and getting Bradford the next year. Passing on a franchise QB in 2009 clearly didn't entirely cripple their plans long term.

But do you think they'd have been better off taking Mark Sanchez in year one instead of Jason Smith? Let's call this the Parcells Dilemma because of the Jake Long or Matt Ryan choice he had to make in 2008.

Would the Rams be better today if they'd have gone QB at 2 in 2009 instead of LT? Just going over this real quick in my mind: if the Rams take Mark Sanchez over Smith in year one they would obviously pass over Bradford for Suh in year two.

Their top picks during this time span would ostensibly be: Mark Sanchez, James Laurinaitis, Ndamukong Suh, Rodger Saffold, Robert Quinn, and Lance Kendricks.

Their actual haul: Jason Smith, Laurinaitis, Bradford, Saffold, Quinn, Kendricks.

It's hard to say if they'd be better off while we're still so early into the Sanchez and Bradford careers. If Bradford ends up being the GOAT and Sanchez is just an ordinary QB then the answer to the dilemma is obvious. Even still, the likelihood of getting Bradford could play no part in their decision to pass on Sanchez at the time.

Both QBs were highly successful immediately in their careers. Both were day one starters, Sam Bradford won OROTY and Sanchez has taken his team to consecutive AFC championships. If nothing else, Sanchez has proven that he's a winner and QB you can contend to win your conference with. Bradford was good enough individually in year one to suggest a confident projection that he'll be a successful starting QB for the long term.

So let's call the Sanchez-Bradford question a push.

The other change is Ndamukong Suh versus Jason Smith. This one is easy. Even if Jason Smith becomes the best RT in the league, Suh could realistically go down as the best defensive tackle in league history. He was one of the greatest college defenders in the history of the game. RT is not nearly as valuable a position as 3 technique to salvage Smith's value. He hasn't been an immediate impact player like Suh and could still potentially bust. The drafting of Rodger Saffold in year two also negates the value of Smith since he's their quality LT.

On the surface, St. Louis is a far better team if they draft Mark Sanchez in year one instead of Jason Smith. It's hard not to like a defensive front with Suh, Long, Quinn, and Laurinaitis. That group is just ****ing nasty. Their loss was Detroit's gain though, and Detroit was smart enough to take their QB in year one.

I think this particular case of the Parcells Dilemma is interesting because it highlights very tangibly the massive opportunity cost you incur by passing on a potential franchise QB in the first round in favor of a higher graded player at another position. You're not just passing on the QB, you're passing on the potential to draft even better position players down the road because not having a franchise QB in development is an albatross around your organization's neck.

1.) As was the case for the Rams, they ended up getting a much lesser talent and much less valuable player in Jason Smith than Ndamukong Suh because they passed on a QB.

2.) Generally speaking, drafting a QB in the top ten is always going to be an unpalatable proposition because all highly drafted QBs carry a great deal of risk. The QB position is difficult to draft and project and every QB carries lots of flaws to create compelling reasons to doubt their chances for success. I.E., you can think of strong reasons to get gunshy on any QB prospect.

Matt Ryan was a risky and flawed prospect. Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez were risky and flawed prospects. Sam Bradford was a risky and flawed prospect. Cam Newton, Jake Locker, and Blaine Gabbert were risky and flawed prospects.

When your scouts grade quarterbacks, you should have a threshold of comfortability you establish according to how high the QB in question's numeric overall grade is. If that prospect reaches that threshold, then you should feel fine drafting them. Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Bradford, and Gabbert would have all been within my threshold of comfort. Locker probably would have been. Ponder probably would have been. Cam Newton would definitely not have been but that's neither here nor there.

Conclusion: passing on a quality QB prospect you give a top ten--fifteen grade because he's too risky is absurd because the difference in riskiness from year to year is usually negligible.

3.) If you pass on a potential franchise QB in the first round assuming you'll get one down the road, you run the risk of never being in position to draft one again while your current regime is in place (Miami Dolphins).

Conclusion: Passing on a potential franchise QB within your accepted threshold of comfortability is always a mistake because the upside for the move is low, the opportunity cost massive, and the potential for a regime killing lack of opportunity to draft a QB is high.

If you're picking top ten in the first year of a new regime, the only good reason to not draft a highly graded QB in the first (assuming you don't already have one) is if there isn't one available.

This is why passing on Blaine Gabbert to draft Ryan Kerrigan and a bunch of backups/potential end of roster types was an enormous mistake. If Shanahan and Allen get fired, we'll probably trace their downfall back to this decision.

[Drew_Fl]

Atlanta, Detroit, Tampa, KC, and St Louis all massively overhauled their roster year one. It wasn't magic, it was commitment.

Unfortunately, we have refused to commit fully to a rebuild, and wasted our first year on the McNabb fiasco, and will counter this years positive draft with a heavy dose of free agency.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 08:00 PM ----------

Though if we consider this Year One of a rebuild process, one could argue that we are following the 2009 Rams path (of those teams, the only one to not acquire a young QB to build around Year One).

So it is not a forgone conclusion that we cant have success rebuilding without a franchise passer to build around from the get go.

None of those teams you listed were as old as we have been the last 5 years. Plus some of those teams have had multiple top 5 picks which makes it much easier to "commit" to rebuilding the roster. i think our definition of rebuild is much different than Shanahan's and frankly i'm ok with it. Everyone on this board wants to just get younger and not better just b/c it's the sexy thing to do. The key is getting younger AND better, and like skinsfan_1215 said you can't do it all in one lockout shortened offseason.

[hitmandm]

. . .

I've been a Redskins fan for 65 of my 75 years, but you're THIS close to losing me. I don't mean you personally. I mean the organization which is now in your control.

Please stop your prattle about "building the right way." You didn't do it in Denver; you didn't do it last year; and you're not likely to do it this year. Please stop treating me like I'm a dunce. If things shake out as we expect them to, there will be a double-dose of free agents on the market. There's no way in hell you're going to resist filling our roster with castoffs.

I had hoped to see the Redskins rise to the top before I die: Number One in the NFL. That's never going to happen as long as Dan Snyder owns the team. So, I'm willing to settle: If winning next season will be the team's goal every year, then let's, at the very least, have a sound plan to achieve that goal. Here are my thoughts on that:

The Fletcher Prototype: Trade draft picks for, or search free agency, for players who remind you of London Fletcher: They are smart, technically sound, productive and healthy -- and they are underrated because they played on losing teams. Pass on the Big Name free agents to stay within the salary cap.

Quarterback: Get a 27 - 30 year old, veteran QB who fits the Fletcher Prototype. Don't worry about his fit to your scheme. Get the best QB available and adapt your scheme to his skillset.

Strong Core: Eleven positions form the core: A number one WR, two OTs, a QB and a RB on offense. On a 34 defense: A number one corner, two edge rushers, a nose and a FS. Special teams: a dangerous return man. Focus hard on filling these positions.

Screw the draft: If the "future is now," then George Allen's plan is the way to go. Trade those picks for vets who fit the Fletcher Prototype. Exceptions: Find your RB and your return man in the draft.

I do like Oldfan...you have to respect a person who will post this after all of Redskin Nation has a johnson for 10 5-7 rd draft picks who will likely be cut or be gone by the time the Redskins draft and develop a young QB

[darrelgreenie]

I do like Oldfan...you have to respect a person who will post this after all of Redskin Nation has a johnson for 10 5-7 rd draft picks who will likely be cut or be gone by the time the Redskins draft and develop a young QB

Actually, someone re-posted that.

Click on the tab by his name it will take you to date and time of his original post.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 09:57 PM ----------

3.) If you pass on a potential franchise QB in the first round assuming you'll get one down the road, you run the risk of never being in position to draft one again while your current regime is in place (Miami Dolphins).

I think Henne will have a chance to prove himself this season.

I've watched as many Dolphins games as Jets games (2 or 3) and I come away feeling that Sanchez and Henne are at least equal if not Henne is a little better.

This is why passing on Blaine Gabbert to draft Ryan Kerrigan and a bunch of backups/potential end of roster types was an enormous mistake. If Shanahan and Allen get fired, we'll probably trace their downfall back to this decision.

Whomever our QB is this season they better (a) play well (imo top 15) ( have at least 4-5 years of solid play ahead of them.

[Gator Bait]

The Rams are an interesting case. They passed on drafting a potential franchise QB in the first year of their new regime in order to take a LT but seemed to get "lucky" by being horrible and getting Bradford the next year. Passing on a franchise QB in 2009 clearly didn't entirely cripple their plans long term.

Notice that both of these teams did it the correct way and took their franchise left tackle prior to their franchise QB...that way the QB doesn't get absolutely killed in the first couple years. I believe this is what we are doing....we are rebuilding our lines and bolstering the supporting caste so we can bring our franchise QB into a good situation. The way the team looks right now on paper we should be pretty awful, and be picking in the top 5 next year, in which we can take that franchise QB.

But do you think they'd have been better off taking Mark Sanchez in year one instead of Jason Smith? Let's call this the Parcells Dilemma because of the Jake Long or Matt Ryan choice he had to make in 2008.

The Jets and the Falcons were in much better situations than the Rams and the Dolphins...much better supporting castes that enabled the QB to come in and be successful right away....same can be said for the Ravens when they drafted Flacco

Would the Rams be better today if they'd have gone QB at 2 in 2009 instead of LT? Just going over this real quick in my mind: if the Rams take Mark Sanchez over Smith in year one they would obviously pass over Bradford for Suh in year two.

this is an interesting argument...not because Sanchez is half the QB Brandford is, but because I believe Suh will be the best defensive player in the league for the next 10 years or so.

Both QBs were highly successful immediately in their careers. Both were day one starters, Sam Bradford won OROTY and Sanchez has taken his team to consecutive AFC championships. If nothing else, Sanchez has proven that he's a winner and QB you can contend to win your conference with. Bradford was good enough individually in year one to suggest a confident projection that he'll be a successful starting QB for the long term.

Huge difference is that Sanchez was actually carried by his team and Brandford carried his. Sanchez plays on a run first team with a great defense and is put in a position not to win games, but not to lose them. He is a game manager at best. Bradford had a decent running game, but the rest of the team was pretty lousy and he almost lead them to a division title.

So let's call the Sanchez-Bradford question a push.

no way....I'll take Bradford over Sanchez any day of the week. I don't believe Sanchez will be remembered as anything special when his career is over, but I believe Bradford has hall of fame potential.

Their loss was Detroit's gain though, and Detroit was smart enough to take their QB in year one.

I can't knock Detroit fo raking Stafford. They needed a QB and took one in a pretty week top 10 first round of a draft. I do, however, think that in 5 years looking back, they may have been better off taking Orakpo or Moreno because I think they will be much better football players than Stafford (I think Stafford will be remembered as a bust) I don't think he is particularly a good QB in the first place and he also has injury issues.....but he was definitely the logical choice at the time. Where they did mess up though, is when they took the tight end with their other first round pick instead of a tackle or even a guard. They could have had Michael Oher protecting Stafford's blind side for the next 10 years.

I think this particular case of the Parcells Dilemma is interesting because it highlights very tangibly the massive opportunity cost you incur by passing on a potential franchise QB in the first round in favor of a higher graded player at another position. You're not just passing on the QB, you're passing on the potential to draft even better position players down the road because not having a franchise QB in development is an albatross around your organization's neck.

recent trends show that first round QBs (when worth the pick) don't have much of a development period when you already have all the other pieces in place...look at Flacco and Ryan.

This is why passing on Blaine Gabbert to draft Ryan Kerrigan and a bunch of backups/potential end of roster types was an enormous mistake. If Shanahan and Allen get fired, we'll probably trace their downfall back to this decision.

so you are saying that you would have taken Gabbert if you were the GM/HC even if you though he would never be a franchise caliber QB just for the sake of taking a QB???? Because I know a lot of the GM/HC in the league weren't high on Gabbert...there is a reason he dropped to 10 past the Titans (who chose Locker over Gabbert), 49ers, Cardinals, and Bengals who all needed QBs....and Jacksonville was the only team willing to trade up for him. And we all know Jacksonville's track record w/ franchise QBs since del Rio has been there. I myself think Gabbert will be a bust as well. We are talking about a guy who played in the spread offense in shotgun w/o the killer instinct and accuracy issues.

and you say we drafted Ryan Kerrigan and a bunch of back ups/end of roster guys? I'll put a sig bet on this one. I bet you a 1 month sig bet that at some point of this year 4 of these guys are starting for the Redskins. Kerrigan will start right off the bat, Jenkins will likely end up as a starting DE, Hankerson will likely start at receiver right off the bat, Helu and/or Royster will get some starts this year at RB being that there is no way Torain makes it through a full season without getting injured (although I'm not sold that both of these guys make the 53 man roster...one of them may end up on the practice squad) Hurt will compete for a starting guard spot..not sure if he will win it or not...but the competition isn't that stiff...so he has a decent shot, and finally as many others have pointed out (SI ESPN etc) Neild will likely see time at NT.

I really don't understand how a person who wants a rebuild can criticize a draft that brings in 12 new young players to infuse youth into a roster.

[Skinsinparadise]

2. Generally speaking, drafting a QB in the top ten is always going to be an unpalatable proposition because all highly drafted QBs carry a great deal of risk. The QB position is difficult to draft and project and every QB carries lots of flaws to create compelling reasons to doubt their chances for success. I.E., you can think of strong reasons to get gunshy on any QB prospect.

Matt Ryan was a risky and flawed prospect. Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez were risky and flawed prospects. Sam Bradford was a risky and flawed prospect. Cam Newton, Jake Locker, and Blaine Gabbert were risky and flawed prospects.

When your scouts grade quarterbacks, you should have a threshold of comfortability you establish according to how high the QB in question's numeric overall grade is. If that prospect reaches that threshold, then you should feel fine drafting them. Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Bradford, and Gabbert would have all been within my threshold of comfort. Locker probably would have been. Ponder probably would have been. Cam Newton would definitely not have been but that's neither here nor there.

Conclusion: passing on a quality QB prospect you give a top ten--fifteen grade because he's too risky is absurd because the difference in riskiness from year to year is usually negligible.

3.) If you pass on a potential franchise QB in the first round assuming you'll get one down the road, you run the risk of never being in position to draft one again while your current regime is in place (Miami Dolphins).

Conclusion: Passing on a potential franchise QB within your accepted threshold of comfortability is always a mistake because the upside for the move is low, the opportunity cost massive, and the potential for a regime killing lack of opportunity to draft a QB is high.

If you're picking top ten in the first year of a new regime, the only good reason to not draft a highly graded QB in the first (assuming you don't already have one) is if there isn't one available.

This is why passing on Blaine Gabbert to draft Ryan Kerrigan and a bunch of backups/potential end of roster types was an enormous mistake. If Shanahan and Allen get fired, we'll probably trace their downfall back to this decision.

This was a good post. I agree with your premise but disagree with the conclusion. I was one of the guys pumping up the idea of trading up for Gabbert back when the rumor came out that it might happen, not because i thought I had the perfect read on Gabbert, but because if Shanny was that excited about him and thought he was a franchise guy then I am on board. And yeah I watch and read everything about the draft, I love the stuff, I've seen plenty on Gabbert but I still think studying a QB has to be up close and much more personnel than we can get from our TV screens nor do I think I am a professional FO guy especially when it comes to QB which is supposedly the most complex position to figure out.

I agree that you don't pass up on a franchise QB. But IMO you are missing an absolute critical component to the decision making process. This is all about what's in Shanny's head, not what's in our head. Using our own logic and extrapolating that to Shanny IMO just doesn't play out. Hopefully what's in his head should be a lot different than what's in ours. His baseline knowledge and perspective on making a call like this should be miles different. Shanny isn't making his call based on the John Gruden special, what Casserly says on NFL Network, or even for that matter watching a select number of games. He's coming at it I would guess not from the same compendium that we are. if he's doing his homework, he's watching everything about Gabbert, talking to every coach, studying him from various angles that go beyond our expertise. Not to mention us having scouts over the years watching the dude in person.

It's just hard for me to believe that Shanny studied Gabbert and said in all probability Gabbert is a stud, but lets pass. If you were Shanny you unlikely would give a whit of interest on what anyone else had to say outside of the people in the building that I gather studied these QB's to death. And for a Qb starved team like us, you'd look at this hard, very hard. I recall Shanny saying when he got this job that he watched JC's every game, not just with the skins, but in college. And i am not saying that having a different perspective -- makes his decision making perfect, just saying he likely made a decision about Gabbert after an exhaustive look in ways that we can't from our couch. And different to me is the operative word. What was going through his head in all likelihood is different than what's going through ours.

And its not like his decision seemed to be a left field crazy one. Yeah even going by draft geeks alone, plenty said Gabbert WASN'T a franchise guy. Greg Cosell, from NFL Film studied the dude, didn't even think he was a first rounder, and he wasn't alone in this. We weren't the only team in need of a Qb that passed on him so did Buffalo, Cincy, SF, Titans. Harbaugh is a college guy, am sure he knew Gabbert well.

Also, I don't presume that he really loved Gabbert and told himself -- franchise QB, whatever, we got bigger needs, or that I am just not a QB kind of guy, lets go get some D lineman instead. If you read his book, he seems if anything obsessed with Qbs. We all know his big move when he came here was to give up picks to get a Qb, Qb is clearly important on his agenda. And no I don't its just that we on Extremeskins get the value of a franchise QB and its lost on Shanny. Based on his book, he gets it and gets it big and is obsessed as anyone to getting that guy -- I agree the draft is a game of probabilities and there are no sure things -- but I'd guess he thought it is improbable that Gabbert ends up a franchise QB. He might end up wrong but he isn't per se taking some dark horse obscure position, there were a lot of draft geeks down on Gabbert.

And the answer could be some happy medium -- he thought perhaps Gabbert will be a good QB not a great one, and he didn't want to pass up addressing our needs for a QB who isn't special. I agree with your thought that if Gabbert ends up a stud and these draft picks stink, that Shanny and Allen's job could be on the line. But heck that's what leaders are supposed to do, make decisions and live with them.

And none of this is meant to impugn your thought process, to each their own, just giving a counter opinion. Great and thoughtful posts on your end, I enjoy reading them. It's boring if we all agree.

---------- Post added May-4th-2011 at 09:16 AM ----------

I do like Oldfan...you have to respect a person who will post this after all of Redskin Nation has a johnson for 10 5-7 rd draft picks who will likely be cut or be gone by the time the Redskins draft and develop a young QB

Oldfan's post was predraft. It was 8 picks not 10 in the 5th through 7th round. And they did have a pick in each of the first 4 rounds so its not like this is just picking late rounders. But to your point yeah Oldfan is thoughtful and entertaining. While i personally liked the draft, I'd welcome an Oldfan post trashing it if that's what he thinks -- he gets some argumentative threads going, and livens things up

---------- Post added May-4th-2011 at 09:20 AM ----------

Great article by the way of Keim interviewing the scout Razzano about our draft. For those that want to remain unhappy about our draft, you won't like it. But for us optimists, it gives you a jolt.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/redskins/2011/05/razzano-redskins-get-b-can-win-beck

[The Tris]

None of those teams you listed were as old as we have been the last 5 years.

You sure about that "fact" you just threw out? Let's take the rosters the year before their rebuild, and get their average age:

Atlanta 2007: 26.7

Detroit 2008: 27.5

Kansas City 2008: 25.2

Tampa Bay 2008: 27.2

St. Louis 2008: 27.8

Washington 2009: 27.6

What I find interesting about all these teams but Detroit, was that up until the latter portion of the 2000's, these teams were powerhouses in the NFL. STL and TB both won Super Bowls, Atlanta and KC both had 13 win seasons and multiple playoff runs, the past decade.

The Chiefs and Rams offenses got old fast, as did the Bucs defense. Atlanta imploded for obvious reasons, and Detroit suffered a decade's malaise of terrible personnel management.

In the case of the three teams that got old - instead of attempting to extend their current run or patch the team up with free agents, they cleaned house as they hit bottom and committed to getting young and rebuilding through the draft with an eye on long term success at the cost of a tough season or two (see Tampa 2009).

Plus some of those teams have had multiple top 5 picks which makes it much easier to "commit" to rebuilding the roster.

Unfortunately, we have decided to artificially prop up an aging and skin deep roster with annual lavish spending on FA, which has prevented us from bottoming out as a rebuilding team needs too. As long as we continue to sign handfuls of free agents, I expect us to pick in the 6 to 15 range - causing us to never truely "commit" to a rebuilding process.

Because there is absolutely no way to commit to a rebuild without a top 5 pick...and since we only rarely pick in the top 5, there is really no reason to do a full on rebuild - that's for the teams that really suck. We just kinda suck, so no need to commit.

Oh, and the best thing for the 2012 Redskins is if the 2011 Redskins are physically prohibited from FA by an extended lockout.

[KevinthePRF]

. . .

I've been a Redskins fan for 65 of my 75 years, but you're THIS close to losing me. I don't mean you personally. I mean the organization which is now in your control.

Please stop your prattle about "building the right way." You didn't do it in Denver; you didn't do it last year; and you're not likely to do it this year. Please stop treating me like I'm a dunce. If things shake out as we expect them to, there will be a double-dose of free agents on the market. There's no way in hell you're going to resist filling our roster with castoffs.

I had hoped to see the Redskins rise to the top before I die: Number One in the NFL. That's never going to happen as long as Dan Snyder owns the team. So, I'm willing to settle: If winning next season will be the team's goal every year, then let's, at the very least, have a sound plan to achieve that goal. Here are my thoughts on that:

The Fletcher Prototype: Trade draft picks for, or search free agency, for players who remind you of London Fletcher: They are smart, technically sound, productive and healthy -- and they are underrated because they played on losing teams. Pass on the Big Name free agents to stay within the salary cap.

Quarterback: Get a 27 - 30 year old, veteran QB who fits the Fletcher Prototype. Don't worry about his fit to your scheme. Get the best QB available and adapt your scheme to his skillset.

Strong Core: Eleven positions form the core: A number one WR, two OTs, a QB and a RB on offense. On a 34 defense: A number one corner, two edge rushers, a nose and a FS. Special teams: a dangerous return man. Focus hard on filling these positions.

Screw the draft: If the "future is now," then George Allen's plan is the way to go. Trade those picks for vets who fit the Fletcher Prototype. Exceptions: Find your RB and your return man in the draft.

This OP is the most encouraging sign I see for the Redskins immediate future thus far. Oldfan came out of his usual house of pessimism and went to bat bigtime for the Cerrato/Zorn era. "It's okay to believe now..." or something like that was an OP he created shortly after Zorn was hired. In that, here's to believing his jinx will continue this time around.

Oldfan's "plan" for winning now is a nice plan for pre-nineties when the salary cap didn't exist. The "Fletcher" prototype is really an exception to the rule in free agency. We got lucky getting Fletcher. Normally teams are smart enough not to let players like that go, but we can't expect to tap genius management like the Bills year in and year out to build a franchise. You can't gamble with free agents as you can with the draft. Gambling on vets for the most part yield worse results than gambling with youth in the draft with a plethora of picks because this is a young man's league. The Skins under Cerrato learned this lesson time and again over the past decade. Speed and athleticism on the whole wins out over wisdom and experience. There are exceptions, Fletcher being one of them, but they are few and far between. More times than not you end up with TJ Duckett.

The Skins so far are doing the opposite of Oldfan's plan. The are getting players for their scheme, not the other way around. The only thing they are giving away picks for now are more picks. It's the way to go, and I hope the Skins stick to that plan.

[Oldfan]

Post 227 DG: I got the signal I was waiting for and it smell like fresh win now.

Why didn't Mike draft a QB?

a) Wants a veteran to win now

Wasn't impressed with any in the draft available at #10

I think we have insufficient evidence to conclude that either a or b is true.

Post 245 MSF: I've had a few goes with OF over the idea that you can do both [build for the future and win now]...Regardless of whether it is feasible, I'm convinced this is what our FO is trying to do.

We agree on that.

Post 252 SIP: ...I do predict that Oldfan will go in spin mode against Shanny because he doesn't like him as coach, and that's fair. But I do think this draft puts a monkey wrench in his theory.

How does this draft throw a money wrench into my theory? My position is now, and always has been, that Mike never had a good rebuilding plan or a good win now plan in Denver, and didn't have either here in 2010.

This year's draft was a good move for a rebuilding team, but it's just one piece of evidence. Let's now see how he handles free agency overall (Atogwe wasn't brought in as part of a rebuild).

My bottom line is that I prefer a solid rebuilding plan, but failing that, let's at least have a solid win now plan.

See Post 245. MSF and I agree that our decision makers are trying to build for the future and win now at the same time. MSF thinks it's possible to do both well. I don't.

And, no... the effort doesn't have to be "pristine." The evidence just has to show a clear direction to please me.

[darrelgreenie]

Why didn't Mike draft a QB?

a) Wants a veteran to win now

Wasn't impressed with any in the draft available at #10

I think we have insufficient evidence to conclude that either a or b is true.

I agree we can't know for sure until we find out who the QB is gonna be.

And even then we won't know for sure.

But, they had the leverage to take a QB pretty much anywhere they wanted it didn't have to be at 10 it could have been anywhere trade up/trade down, mid round, late round.

They didn't take a QB at all.

Also our insiders said that Gabbert was the top QB on the Redskins draft board.

And at post combine Redskins Fan Luncheon Mike Shanahan mentioned that 3 players he was impressed with from the combine were Julio Jones, Patrick Peterson and Ryan Mallett.

Mike Shanahan also said that he thought that this was a deep QB draft class.

[Skinsinparadise]

How does this draft throw a money wrench into my theory? My position is now, and always has been, that Mike never had a good rebuilding plan or a good win now plan in Denver, and didn't have either here in 2010.

This year's draft was a good move for a rebuilding team, but it's just one piece of evidence. Let's now see how he handles free agency overall (Atogwe wasn't brought in as part of a rebuild).

My bottom line is that I prefer a solid rebuilding plan, but failing that, let's at least have a solid win now plan.

See Post 245. MSF and I agree that our decision makers are trying to build for the future and win now at the same time. MSF thinks it's possible to do both well. I don't.

And, no... the effort doesn't have to be "pristine." The evidence just has to show a clear direction to please me.

Good to see you back. We all see thing through are own perspective of course, and this would revisit my #1 criteria for rebuilding and that is use the draft, add picks, go nuts. They did exactly that. I love the insanely big drafts the Eagles and Patriots continually have -- IMO your best chance of success in the draft is to have lots of picks, it increases your hit rate. For me -- its getting younger, and using the draft. they did that. They didn't trade up and take picks away from next draft for a change. In fact we already have 8 picks next year, and wouldn't surprise me will have at least 9 before the season starts. But yeah for me its all about the draft.

Yeah I can care less whether they sign an odd veteran here and there. No one is saying the Rams aren't rebuilding because they signed Fred Robbins or the Lions aren't rebuilding because they traded a draft pick for a 31 year old LB like Peterson. But yes you got some veterans on every roster. If the Skins are hedging their bets then so is every team in the NFL. You imply that you buy into stats and numbers and so do I -- bottom line for me is if the age of the Redskins roster heading into this year is young, and they have a full slate of picks plus additional ones -- I'll be happy about it. If that's not enough for you, that's cool, but we'd be at in impasse from a debate stand point.

With your continual critique on Shanny, IMO if you questioned how good his picks are that would be valid, considering how the heck do we know right now how well he did, these guys could be busts, will find out. But the idea that this proves that he is reloading as opposed to rebuilding or for that matter hedging his bets because he signed a 29 year old FA at a position where players tend to have long careers, I disagree.

[The Tris]

Yeah I can care less whether they sign an odd veteran here and there. No one is saying the Rams aren't rebuilding because they signed Fred Robbins or the Lions aren't rebuilding because they traded a draft pick for a 31 year old LB like Peterson. But yes you got some veterans on every roster.

I agree with you here, measured use of free agency is a vital part of the rebuilding process. Signing a FA starter and a couple depth/rotation guys isn't a big deal.

However, what we are expecting to see come the opening of the league year, is signing multiple FA starters. We have already signed Atogwe, which is a great signing with a unique situation in terms of coaching familarity. But then you compound that with signing a starting RG (D. Joseph), a starting RT (Harris), and potentially a starting CB (J. Joseph or other) and a QB (Hasselbeck or VY, despite the sudden John Beck love Shanahan developed this offseason), you have gone from complimenting your rebuilding efforts with a veteran, to supplimenting your rebuilding efforts with multiple veteran starters.

Thats the one foot in the rebuilding camp, one foot in the win now camp that Oldfan is talking about.

[ADF]

Good to see you back Oldfan. I was beginning to wonder what happened to you.

[Drew_Fl]

You sure about that "fact" you just threw out? Let's take the rosters the year before their rebuild, and get their average age:

Atlanta 2007: 26.7

Detroit 2008: 27.5

Kansas City 2008: 25.2

Tampa Bay 2008: 27.2

St. Louis 2008: 27.8

Washington 2009: 27.6

What I find interesting about all these teams but Detroit, was that up until the latter portion of the 2000's, these teams were powerhouses in the NFL. STL and TB both won Super Bowls, Atlanta and KC both had 13 win seasons and multiple playoff runs, the past decade.

The Chiefs and Rams offenses got old fast, as did the Bucs defense. Atlanta imploded for obvious reasons, and Detroit suffered a decade's malaise of terrible personnel management.

In the case of the three teams that got old - instead of attempting to extend their current run or patch the team up with free agents, they cleaned house as they hit bottom and committed to getting young and rebuilding through the draft with an eye on long term success at the cost of a tough season or two (see Tampa 2009).

Unfortunately, we have decided to artificially prop up an aging and skin deep roster with annual lavish spending on FA, which has prevented us from bottoming out as a rebuilding team needs too. As long as we continue to sign handfuls of free agents, I expect us to pick in the 6 to 15 range - causing us to never truely "commit" to a rebuilding process.

Because there is absolutely no way to commit to a rebuild without a top 5 pick...and since we only rarely pick in the top 5, there is really no reason to do a full on rebuild - that's for the teams that really suck. We just kinda suck, so no need to commit.

Oh, and the best thing for the 2012 Redskins is if the 2011 Redskins are physically prohibited from FA by an extended lockout.

Did you do the math on the average age of the starters? That's all i care about. I'm not gonna take the time to do the math and I don't recommend you do either. People are way to hooked on the age as a qualifying factor to play football. In key positions sure you'd like to have a guy you can depend on for the next 5 years at QB, WR, CB, LB...(Basically all the skill positions). But there are positions that can continually fill on a rotational basis every couple of years as long as you get competent players. We were doing that with our o-line for a couple of years, and then just stopped.

My conclusion is a "total rebuild" is never necessary. You take a chance on young guys at skill positions like everyone is saying, but recognize which positions in your system can be filled by journeymen. This will allow you to rebuild only the players you feel you need to and will speed the process.

Does it really matter if our starting RG is a 28 yr old FA signee as long as he's competent? However, if we strike gold with a 24 yr old QB, then everything else will fall into place.

[Oldfan]

....But yeah for me its all about the draft.

The draft approach is a major piece of evidence, but it isn't the only piece.

Will trades or free agency play a major role as a source for supplying the starters for the core positions?

If the Skins are hedging their bets then so is every team in the NFL.

Most NFL teams are mediocre just like we have been for the last 20 years, and like Denver was under Shanahan's leadership. I'm not fond of mediocre.

You imply that you buy into stats and numbers and so do I -- bottom line for me is if the age of the Redskins roster heading into this year is young, and they have a full slate of picks plus additional ones -- I'll be happy about it.

The average age stat is not one I see as useful. I look at the ages of the core players. We only have a couple of good young players at the core positions.

With your continual critique on Shanny, IMO if you questioned how good his picks are that would be valid, considering how the heck do we know right now how well he did, these guys could be busts, will find out.

I have questioned the plan overall. Trading down in the draft was a good plan for a rebuilding team. Obviously, it doesn't matter how good the plan is if you can't execute it well. But, that's a different problem.

But the idea that this proves that he is reloading as opposed to rebuilding or for that matter hedging his bets because he signed a 29 year old FA at a position where players tend to have long careers, I disagree.

Who are you disagreeing with? Signing Atogwe is one piece of evidence supporting a win now approach. On its own, it proves nothing.

[DCchillin89]

Did you do the math on the average age of the starters? That's all i care about. I'm not gonna take the time to do the math and I don't recommend you do either. People are way to hooked on the age as a qualifying factor to play football. In key positions sure you'd like to have a guy you can depend on for the next 5 years at QB, WR, CB, LB...(Basically all the skill positions). But there are positions that can continually fill on a rotational basis every couple of years as long as you get competent players. We were doing that with our o-line for a couple of years, and then just stopped.

My conclusion is a "total rebuild" is never necessary. You take a chance on young guys at skill positions like everyone is saying, but recognize which positions in your system can be filled by journeymen. This will allow you to rebuild only the players you feel you need to and will speed the process.

Does it really matter if our starting RG is a 28 yr old FA signee as long as he's competent? However, if we strike gold with a 24 yr old QB, then everything else will fall into place.

I think we just need to build a foundation with young players at multiple positions. It's stupid to think that a team that is is green is going to go deep in the playoffs. Of course you need vets. Supplement a core foundation of young players with Vets to fill in the cracks. We've been doing it exactly the opposite the past decade.

[skinny21]

I think we're wasting time acquiring a bunch of 27+ year olds to form most of the supporting cast of the roster when we don't have a QB in place. Make no mistake, that's what we've done. Projected starting roster and their ages for the 2011 season:

QB: John Beck (30) or Rex Grossman (31)

HB: Ryan Torain (25)

FB: Mike Sellers (36)

WR: Anthony Armstrong (28), Santana Moss (32) or Leonard Hankerson (23)

TE: Chris Cooley (29)

LT: Trent Williams (23)

LG: Kory Lichtensteiger (26)

OC: Casey Rabach (34) or Will Montgomery (28)

RG: Davin Joseph (28) or Montgomery or BMW (31)

RT: Jammal Brown (30) or Ryan Harris (26)

DE: Adam Carriker (27) and Jarvis Jenkins (23) or Jeremy Jarmon (24)

NT: Anthony Bryant (30)

OLB: Brian Orakpo (25) and Ryan Kerrigan (23)

ILB: London Fletcher (36) and Robert Henson (25) or Perry Riley (23)

CB: Deangelo Hall (28) and Carlos Rogers (30) or Kevin Barnes (25) or Phil Buchanon (31)

FS: O.J. Atogwe (30)

SS: LaRon Landry (27)

So on the lowest and most optimistic end of the spectrum, the average age of our starters in 2011 will be 27.2 years old.

On the highest and least optimistic end, the average age will be 28.7 years old.

My guess is that the total will be somewhere in between those two numbers. That's a fairly old roster and not a young core to be building around a 22 year old drafted QB. This core will enter into its 30's by the time our QB is ready to compete. Key pieces like LaRon, Orakpo, Carriker, Hall, Armstrong, Cooley, Torain, (Joseph and Harris if we sign them to big deals like the rumors say we will) will all be nearing or past 30 by the time we've got a QB ready to compete assuming we draft one in 2012.

This is why you have to get your QB early in your rebuild rather than waiting on him. Otherwise you're just wasting years from the careers of the rest of the roster and making your job difficult three and four years down the line by creating a necessity of rebuilding your core on the fly while drafting late.

I've got a lot of respect for your post but couldn't help myself from playing the devil's advocate.

I get the basic premise... a qb should be developed early in the rebuilding process for the process to be considered a "true" rebuild. But what happens if we grab that qb (say gabbert), build our team around him and then discover he's not going to do it for us?

We've now built up a solid team (in theory) and now have nobody to lead them. So we look for another young guy to develop (maybe we were even smart enough to start developing a second young qb along the way). Meanwhile the team is getting older and our window is closing.

My issue with this is it seems to discount the fact that we're drafting more talent each year. In terms of our current "rebuild" if some key guys are old by the time a qb is ready in say, 3-5 yrs... shouldn't we have able replacements in place by then? I know a lot of draft picks are misses, but shouldn't we have 20-30 guys drafted in the next 3 yrs to replace guys getting into their early to mid thirties?

In terms of the age thing, it seems to me that old for most positions (rb aside) is over 32, and that is hard to say as a 33yr-old. So many of our core guys have a window of 5-7 yrs left before they are old. In those 5-7 years I have to imagine we'll have drafted or signed a large number of newer core players to replace and supplement those guys.

My point is this: the redskins have been pretty terrible about trading away picks and/or not acquiring picks as we all know. Finally, this draft we've acted like philly, who seems to always have a dozen or so draftees when the draft is over. They (and we) can therefore always stay young by consistenly replacing aging key players with young studs. Philly has a ton of young studs, and they have numerous drafts to work on replacing those guys when needed.

I'm not at all satisfied with this post, but my brain is fried and I made my general point... i guess.

BTW, I quoted the players ages because I didn't at all agree here. I'm guessing that by the beginning of the 2012 season, if not the upcoming season, we'll probably have replaced Sellers, Rabach, Fletcher, Buchanon and (I hate to say it) Cooley with younger talent. Additionally, I don't think age of starters is really much of an issue, as long as you are developing young talent behind them. I remember when people were talking about how old our d-line was, but we had guys like golston, alexander, jarmon, wilson and others in the wings. Sure, they couldn't beat out Daniels, but I'm guessing his experience played a major role there. So our rush guys went from Daniels and Carter, to Carter and Orakpo, and now to Orakpo and Kerrigan. Old to average age to young in basically 2 (ok, maybe 3) offseasons. That (not to mention changes in our OL) shows me that we can get young quick... if we have the desire and picks to do so. Here's to hoping Shanny continues to have both of those.