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

[Oldfan]

Mahons21 -- I don't think this has to be the treadmill plan though. So long as the team isn't trading away draft-picks, and they're developing drafted talent (during practice) behind the starters, they can achieve mediocrity while re-building.

Not without an extraordinary draft or one helluva draft hit rate.

The Patriots have a full core which they maintain by draft hit rate X. The Skins have less than half a core, so to enable them to both maintain and build a full core at the same time, they have to draft at a much better hit rate (X+) than the Patriots

However said player is a marked improvement over everyone behind him.

Holy hell! You stacked that deck so I have no chance. This 32 year-old vet has no trade value, but he's much better than anyone behind him. On the other hand, this front office is much better at drafting than the Patriots.

How can they be so good at drafting, but have no talent pushing an OLB who has no trade value?

[Mahons21]

Not without an extraordinary draft or one helluva draft hit rate.

The Patriots have a full core which they maintain by draft hit rate X. The Skins have less than half a core, so to enable them to both maintain and build a full core at the same time, they have to draft at a much better hit rate (X+) than the Patriots

Or they can use FA to allow them to build a current core, which you then maintain with draft rate x. In addition they can trade back in drafts etc... The Patriots are great at acquiring extra draft picks, but it isn't solely because they trade away their aging Vets, they also work miracles on draft day.

Holy hell! You stacked that deck so I have no chance. This 32 year-old vet has no trade value, but he's much better than anyone behind him. On the other hand, this front office is much better at drafting than the Patriots.

How can they be so good at drafting, but have no talent pushing an OLB who has no trade value?

Haha, a stacked deck it is. Rather than using that hypothetical scenario, what do you think of the Driver scenario I pointed out? I think he's a similar case to the hypothetical case I gave.

Keith Vanden Bosch, is another player I could see fitting this bill.

[Oldfan]

Or they can use FA to allow them to build a current core, which you then maintain with draft rate x. In addition they can trade back in drafts etc... The Patriots are great at acquiring extra draft picks, but it isn't solely because they trade away their aging Vets, they also work miracles on draft day.

How does it improve your hit rate over the Patriots by doing what they are already doing?

Rather than using that hypothetical scenario, what do you think of the Driver scenario I pointed out? I think he's a similar case to the hypothetical case I gave.

You are implying that if GB had traded Driver, they would not have won a SB. How did you arrive at that conclusion? It's not a reasonable deduction. Maybe the pick they got in trade would have produced the top flight LT they need and Driver's replacement would have been as good or better. maybe they would have won two Super Bowls.

Trading aged vets while they still have value will work out to be a good idea most of the time, that's how we make good decisions. We play the percentages. We don't expect to be right each and every time.

[Mahons21]

How does it improve your hit rate over the Patriots by doing what they are already doing?

It doesn't. But teams have become more talented then the Patriots in my opinion. They've done so by infusing the team with FAs/UDFAs/and hitting on draft picks, ie the Green Bay Packers.

Here are some of their core players, in my opinion, that have been acquired via any method other than the draft:

Woodson

Grant

Jenkins

Pickett

Tramon Williams

Atari Bigby (no longer a core player but a solid acquisition)

John Kuhn

You are implying that if GB had traded Driver, they would not have won a SB. How did you arrive at that conclusion? It's not a reasonable deduction. Maybe the pick they got in trade would have produced the top flight LT they need and Driver's replacement would have been as good or better. maybe they would have won two Super Bowls.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply that. My implication was that GB won a Superbowl and appears to be on the right path towards creating a year in and year out competitor. So one would logically assume for the most part they make the right decisions, and in this case they chose to keep Driver, rather than carry out a plan similar to the one your propose.

I would also add the Driver a great possession receiver has been extremely valuable to the development of their talented young QB. But obviously I don't actually KNOW this, and it's also possible that Driver is hindering the development of Rodgers, though I believe it to be unlikely.

Trading aged vets while they still have value will work out to be a good idea most of the time, that's how we make good decisions. We play the percentages. We don't expect to be right each and every time.

It all depends on the trade. Trading Richard Seymour for two first-round draft picks, that's a no-brainer. Trading Cooley for maybe a 4th rounder, and the decision is much more difficult. Would the draft pick ever even be a solid contributor to the team? Or is he just the next Rhinehart/Tryon.

[darrelgreenie]

If your talent has not yet been developed you're inferior in talent to other players who have more talent even if it has been developed.

We're going around in circles bro.

Once again my point is that they need to play to develop.

You actually make my point later in this very thread when you essentially call the coaching staff dumb for not playing Armstrong and Bryant.

Agree to disagree. I remember Landry getting beat by every single double move that came his way, and I remember him taking poor angles. And his statistics certainly don't support the notion he was playing adequately at FS. He had three INT's in two years.

Like, I said this is extremeskins where a few bad games trumps a players entire career.

If you want to believe Landry was never a good FS that your prerogative.

Then you agree, Moore had no competition from a true FS.

C'mon dude aren't we beyond this?

But you have to agree that Moore had a leg up on him, considering it's his natural position. Even when you look at their skill sets it's obvious Moore is much better suited to FS

Wether he has a leg up is besides the point. You said that Moore had no competition from Doughty at FS.

I'm telling why he did in fact have competition from Doughty.

FYI They were even switching off during the season:

Redskins free safety Reed Doughty started in place of Kareem Moore in Sunday's 17-14 victory over the Chicago Bears, a move Doughty said was more situational than a demotion for Moore. "Chris [Horton] and me and Kareem have all been switching off," Doughty said. "They're just going to play us as they see fit, what kind of situations we're in."

Doughty played the bulk of snaps against the Bears, though Moore did enter in the second half. Moore, who missed the first two games with a knee injury but started four weeks in a row, has struggled against the run recently, and he appeared in Doughty's place in the second half, when the Bears began to pass more frequently.

"I had an idea I'd play a lot," Doughty said. "They said we're going to switch off some, depending on the situation. I really don't know what makes them do it."

If you have a player who is struggling mightily (kemo/galloway) and someone on the roster is clearly better and you're not playing them, you're dumb. There has to be some justification, to think otherwise is illogical.

You're making my point.

There is no way to know they're better until they get in a game and prove it.

What you call 'dumb' happens all the time in every sport, if every coach or staff that was hesitant to play a back-up developmental player was dumb then every coach has at one point or another been dumb.

I would just call it a mistake.

But, that's me.

Hail-

Lets just agree to disagree?

This is going no where.

[Wyvern]

Oldfan, Since you've raised it a few times -- I went back and looked at the Dolphins.

In particular, I was looking at who Parcells added to the Miami roster -- to leverage that turnaround. The 1-15 Dolphins had issues at QB. Parcells replaced the young draft pick Beck and Cleo Lemon with Chad Pennington (not exactly a spring chicken). Also he developed schemes that allowed greater usage of RB Ricky Williams (also an older player.)

These are older two 'skill' players who supplanted younger players or at least prevented the Dolphin youth from getting playing time. This runs counter to what you've been espousing, but seems to have contributed to a significant turnaround.

While McNabb cost the Skins picks -- Shanahan seemed to be trying to resolve a similar problem for the Skins. With no Campbell, QBs were needed. Who at the time would have suspected how much McNabb would underwhelm, or how Grossman would turn out, ...especially when you considered their recent performance history.

As far as Shanahan's off-season searches for running backs for the ZBS -- I think it was simply an attempt to bring in some quality veteran RBs cheaply -- folks who could extend offensive series and support enough running plays for Shanahan to determine which of his linemen were truly "ZBS-worthy." Portis was already a question-mark and RBs like Cartwright were already being rejected. More depth was needed for someone who might fit in a ZBS. So this was not about convincing the linemen of the merits of the ZBS, it was about removing their excuses for not producing under fire.

By the way, I'm enjoying this back and forth -- you're defending your position quite well. A lot of good discussion here.

[The Tris]

Here are some of their core players, in my opinion, that have been acquired via any method other than the draft:

Jerkins

Tramon Williams

Atari Bigby (no longer a core player but a solid acquisition)

There is a huge difference between signing UDFAs and unrestricted veteran free agents. You know this.

The point is not to solely use the draft, the point is to avoid the use of signing veteran free agents to multi year deals to build a core.

UDFAs, signing PS players, and signing cheap veterans to short term deals ala Holliday and Buchanon when necessary are all areas with which we should continue to build our team.

Signing UFA veterans to 3+ year contracts when you are a team devoid of our talent is a horrible strategy if long term sustained excellence is wanted.

FWIW, the past six seasons, the Packers have signed a total of two players, Woodson and Pickett, who are of the vet UFA type - the type of players like Atogwe. Thus far in two extremely FA scarce off seasons, Mike has signed one of these such players, and traded for two more. That's not exactly the same pace as Ted Thompson has demonstrated.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 09:00 PM ----------

Oldfan, Since you've raised it a few times -- I went back and looked at the Dolphins.

In particular, I was looking at who Parcells added to the Miami roster -- to leverage that turnaround. The 1-15 Dolphins had issues at QB. Parcells replaced the young draft pick Beck and Cleo Lemon with Chad Pennington (not exactly a spring chicken). Also he developed schemes that allowed greater usage of RB Ricky Williams (also an older player.)

and where has the dolphins turn around gotten them? A quick bounce back with an infusion of veteran talent that they were not able to build off of because they are old at too many key spots (RB and LB) and under developed at other spots (QB). They are struggling to maintain .500 record, and questions are surrounding their entire front office, as well as the QB.

Contrast that with the draft-heavy approach taken by the Falcons, who have built each year from a similar starting point. Yes, the falcons sign big name free agents, but in moderation, only one per season (as I have repeatedly advocated as a loose rule for our front office) and shown a willingness to shed veterans for picks when rebuilding (there by committing to the process from the get go-something we never did).

Mike did not show a commitment to a rebuild in year one, and it remains to be seen how he will embrace free agency if or when it happens.

[TheLongshot]

Your point is overstated but valid; however, I think you are giving it too much weight in view of the team's current predicament. Our core is lacking a QB, RT, WR, RB, NT and another edge rusher. This team needs much more talent just to get back to mediocre.

At least three of those positions I can say is more unproven than anything. At RB, we have a bunch of guys who any of them could be the guy given a full offseason. If you resign Moss, you also have Armstrong, who proved enough that he can play in this league, which leaves Kelly and Austin still yet to prove themselves. While it could stand improvement, I don't think that's a position of dire straits. I know you don't believe in Brown, but we also drafted Capers. Certainly a better situation there than before Shanahan got here.

Mike will probably make more FA moves like Atogwe, 30, which will mean that we will get back to mediocrity with a high turnover rate, so the parts will need replaced annually just to stay mediocre. The Treadmill Plan.

In that scenario, the only thing that would project us into a perennial winner would be a ridiculously lucky draft like Bethard's 1981.

Not without an extraordinary draft or one helluva draft hit rate.

The Patriots have a full core which they maintain by draft hit rate X. The Skins have less than half a core, so to enable them to both maintain and build a full core at the same time, they have to draft at a much better hit rate (X+) than the Patriots

I wanted to put these two next to each other. I think you forget that the Patriots started off their line of success by signing rather inexpensive FAs that performed well for them. As the draft engine got going, those players went by the wayside.

It takes a bit for the draft engine to get going. You have to get to the point where you are able to pick the best players. The Patriots didn't become a great team overnight. It took about 7 years, probably pushed back a bit with Parcells leaving.

The Dolphins has had more than their share of draft picks, having more than the average the past 3 years. Yet, it hasn't helped them become a great team, sitting with a sub-.500 record for the 2nd year in a row. It isn't like they haven't pushed veterans out of town either.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 11:27 PM ----------

The point is not to solely use the draft, the point is to avoid the use of signing veteran free agents to multi year deals to build a core.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I don't think anyone will argue that Drew Brees is a big part of why the Saints are successful. The key is understanding the limitations and risks of FA. (Same goes with the draft as well.)

I think we would have seen some greater play in FA if there was more of a market last year.

and where has the dolphins turn around gotten them? A quick bounce back with an infusion of veteran talent that they were not able to build off of because they are old at too many key spots (RB and LB) and under developed at other spots (QB). They are struggling to maintain .500 record, and questions are surrounding their entire front office, as well as the QB.

Contrast that with the draft-heavy approach taken by the Falcons, who have built each year from a similar starting point. Yes, the falcons sign big name free agents, but in moderation, only one per season (as I have repeatedly advocated as a loose rule for our front office) and shown a willingness to shed veterans for picks when rebuilding (there by committing to the process from the get go-something we never did).

As I pointed out above, the Dolphins also went draft-heavy, so I don't get that this is such a disparity.

[Mahons21]

There is a huge difference between signing UDFAs and unrestricted veteran free agents. You know this.

Yes I do... What is your point? OF asked how a team like ours could ever reach the level of talent that the Patriots are at if both team are drafting at x rate.. I said you bring in FAs, and showed how GB has done so with both UDFA and FA acquisitions in the off-season

I even pointed it out in my post that some were UDFA

It doesn't. But teams have become more talented then the Patriots in my opinion. They've done so by infusing the team with FAs/UDFAs/and hitting on draft picks, ie the Green Bay Packers.

The point is not to solely use the draft, the point is to avoid the use of signing veteran free agents to multi year deals to build a core.

I disagree, I take it on a case by case basis.

UDFAs, signing PS players, and signing cheap veterans to short term deals ala Holliday and Buchanon when necessary are all areas with which we should continue to build our team.

I agree... I never said otherwise...

Signing UFA veterans to 3+ year contracts when you are a team devoid of our talent is a horrible strategy if long term sustained excellence is wanted.

It depends on the situation.

FWIW, the past six seasons, the Packers have signed a total of two players, Woodson and Pickett, who are of the vet UFA type - the type of players like Atogwe. Thus far in two extremely FA scarce off seasons, Mike has signed one of these such players, and traded for two more. That's not exactly the same pace as Ted Thompson has demonstrated.

I'm not arguing in favor of what Shannahan has done..

You seem to be disagreeing with many points I never made.

[Oldfan]

Mahons21 -- It doesn't. But teams have become more talented then the Patriots in my opinion.

I chose the Patriots as a benchmark because they have built and maintained their core for several seasons. The Pack hasn't done that yet.

Here are some of their core players, in my opinion, that have been acquired via any method other than the draft:

I think you misunderstood me. When I said that only a high draft hit rate would allow the Skins to build while winning, I didn't mean that the core can't be built using other sources. I meant that, since the draft is the main source of good players, a hit rate better than the Patriots would be needed

I'm sorry I didn't mean to imply that. My implication was that GB won a Superbowl and appears to be on the right path towards creating a year in and year out competitor. So one would logically assume for the most part they make the right decisions, and in this case they chose to keep Driver, rather than carry out a plan similar to the one your propose.

GB hasn't shown that they could maintain anything yet.

I would also add the Driver a great possession receiver has been extremely valuable to the development of their talented young QB. But obviously I don't actually KNOW this, and it's also possible that Driver is hindering the development of Rodgers, though I believe it to be unlikely.

Mentoring and leadership are factors to consider only when the decision to trade or keep a vet is borderline.

It all depends on the trade. Trading Richard Seymour for two first-round draft picks, that's a no-brainer. Trading Cooley for maybe a 4th rounder, and the decision is much more difficult.

I agree that there are exceptions. I offered a general rule.

---------- Post added March-16th-2011 at 05:15 AM ----------

Wyvern, Oldfan, Since you've raised it a few times -- I went back and looked at the Dolphins.

In particular, I was looking at who Parcells added to the Miami roster -- to leverage that turnaround. The 1-15 Dolphins had issues at QB. Parcells replaced the young draft pick Beck and Cleo Lemon with Chad Pennington (not exactly a spring chicken). Also he developed schemes that allowed greater usage of RB Ricky Williams (also an older player.)

These are older two 'skill' players who supplanted younger players or at least prevented the Dolphin youth from getting playing time. This runs counter to what you've been espousing, but seems to have contributed to a significant turnaround.

I brought up the Dolphins in two contexts in this thread. I'm certain that I didn't raise them as an example of how to build for the long-term which is the topic now. Parcells made four quick turnarounds, but his turnarounds never won a Super Bowl, so his model is useful only if quick turnarounds is the goal.

While McNabb cost the Skins picks -- Shanahan seemed to be trying to resolve a similar problem for the Skins. With no Campbell, QBs were needed. Who at the time would have suspected how much McNabb would underwhelm, or how Grossman would turn out, ...especially when you considered their recent performance history.

I didn't predict Grossman, but in a thread soon after the trade, I predicted McNabb would be only a small improvement over Campbell. I backed that up with an article by stats guru Aaron Schaatz saying the same thing. McNabb's 2010 performance was on a par with his last two seasons in Philly. Only his support changed.

By the way, I'm enjoying this back and forth -- you're defending your position quite well. A lot of good discussion here.

We have some good posters going at it. That's what it takes.

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot -- At least three of those positions I can say is more unproven than anything. At RB, we have a bunch of guys who any of them could be the guy given a full offseason. If you resign Moss, you also have Armstrong, who proved enough that he can play in this league, which leaves Kelly and Austin still yet to prove themselves. While it could stand improvement, I don't think that's a position of dire straits. I know you don't believe in Brown, but we also drafted Capers. Certainly a better situation there than before Shanahan got here.

The statement you quoted was about filling key positions, the core, with NFL grade starters: a #1 Wr, RB, etc. I haven't seen any player on our team good enough, but I don't rule out the possibility that a player currently on the roster might develop to fill a position I listed. It just seems unlikely.

I wanted to put these two next to each other. I think you forget that the Patriots started off their line of success by signing rather inexpensive FAs that performed well for them. As the draft engine got going, those players went by the wayside.

The Patriots' 2001 team used 16 free agents as gap fillers. However, as I recall, the 2000 and 2001 drafts hit two or three studs each. When added to what was already there, they had a decent core. They also were lucky to win in 2001. They were strong on defense, but hardly a power on offense.

The Dolphins has had more than their share of draft picks, having more than the average the past 3 years. Yet, it hasn't helped them become a great team, sitting with a sub-.500 record for the 2nd year in a row. It isn't like they haven't pushed veterans out of town either.

Parcells' teams are a good model if a quick turnaround is the goal, but not for long term success.

[Rocky52Mc]

You can't sign "London Fletchers". You can raise them though, but you also need a productive team. London won a Superbowl, we caught him off the Bills because they're a dysfunctional organization.

[Oldfan]

You can't sign "London Fletchers". You can raise them though, but you also need a productive team. London won a Superbowl, we caught him off the Bills because they're a dysfunctional organization.

You are right that more of his type can be found in the draft, but the players cut loose as NFL free agents from winning teams are usually overrated because their performances were enhanced by better coaching and teamwork than those off teams like the Bills and other bottom feeders.

[tr1]

I'm with oldfan...bring back Jim Zorn!

I'm getting up there in years, too, and I know we don't have much time left to be fans, but we've only seen one draft and one season by this SB winning coach who inherited a disaster of a team.

Patience man.

[Mahons21]

I chose the Patriots as a benchmark because they have built and maintained their core for several seasons. The Pack hasn't done that yet.

Very true. However in my opinion the Pack have become as talented if not more talented then the Patriots, so they're in position to maintain a solid core that could compete every season. But I understand your point, they haven't done so yet.

I think you misunderstood me. When I said that only a high draft hit rate would allow the Skins to build while winning, I didn't mean that the core can't be built using other sources. I meant that, since the draft is the main source of good players, a hit rate better than the Patriots would be needed

I see what you're saying. But you have to give different weight to different hits. If we draft at the same x hit rate, but our players turn into pro-bowlers (not likely I know), and their players are solid starters I would say that the pro-bowl picks deserve more weight. If that make sense.

I agree that there are exceptions. I offered a general rule.

My point was that I think most coaches, and myself agree with your rule, but it's more difficult than that. The price has to be right. I'm not gonna go trade Cooley for a 7th rounder just for the hell of it. Now if we were offered a 2nd round pick, it'd be a completely different story.

[Oldfan]

...I see what you're saying. But you have to give different weight to different hits. If we draft at the same x hit rate, but our players turn into pro-bowlers (not likely I know), and their players are solid starters I would say that the pro-bowl picks deserve more weight. If that make sense.

Okay, I see your point. It's not just the hit rate, but the quality of the hits. That makes sense.

My point was that I think most coaches, and myself agree with your rule, but it's more difficult than that. The price has to be right. I'm not gonna go trade Cooley for a 7th rounder just for the hell of it. Now if we were offered a 2nd round pick, it'd be a completely different story.

I'll go along with that, but I don't think it would happen often. When you are offering a player to 31 other teams, I think he's going to fetch a fair price unless the market thinks it's a distress sale (you have to cut the player anyway).

[illone]

He is actually losing me too.

However, I'd like to see what happens when the team is actually able to conduct business.

The timing of this thread couldn't have been worse.

[Oldfan]

... The timing of this thread couldn't have been worse.

Here's another very recent thread on the same topic for you to gripe about.

"Skinscast: What they should do, what they will do"

[Mr_ Skinshead]

Why even watch the games if you already know that everything is going to be so terrible?

The moves at the end of the season and beginning of this offseason have been the best possible. You're looking at this with such a fatalistic view that you'll never be happy, really.

Maybe it's not a fatalistic view; it's nearly a half century more experience than you have.

[TheLongshot]

The statement you quoted was about filling key positions, the core, with NFL grade starters: a #1 Wr, RB, etc. I haven't seen any player on our team good enough, but I don't rule out the possibility that a player currently on the roster might develop to fill a position I listed. It just seems unlikely.

That is an issue I have with your critisim: you don't really have a good view of who has a good potential of being an NFL grade starters amonst the young players on this team. I also find it laughable that signing on a bunch of undrafted RFA would make you feel any more comfortable about that.

The Patriots' 2001 team used 16 free agents as gap fillers. However, as I recall, the 2000 and 2001 drafts hit two or three studs each. When added to what was already there, they had a decent core. They also were lucky to win in 2001. They were strong on defense, but hardly a power on offense.

Parcells' teams are a good model if a quick turnaround is the goal, but not for long term success.

I'd disagree with the remark about Parcells in that he left a solid base whereever he went. I'll use the Patriots, which he turned from a perenial loser to a team that could get to the playoffs. Course, the future success of his previous stops were dependant on what people did with them afterwards. (After a misfire, Billicheck turned the Patriots into a winner. With the Jets, Herm Edwards has now turned into a two time loser so that opportunity was squandered. There is no doubt about the talent Parcells collected with the Cowboys, which Jerry Jones has squandered somewhat and is now trying to salvage.

[Oldfan]

--

TheLongshot -- That is an issue I have with your critisim: you don't really have a good view of who has a good potential of being an NFL grade starters amonst the young players on this team.

Gosh. You value your opinion on young personnel over mine. Who would have guessed that?

You have a history of unrealistic optimism with personnel. I recall debating with you on this same topic in 2005 when you were high on the potential of Jim Molinaro and Mark Wilson. You have similar arguments with posters every year. Now, you're claiming to know enough to project Selvish Capers as a legit prospect. The fact is, neither of use has enough evidence to judge Capers, but we know that the odds are against him becoming an NFL grade starter.

In addition to being brittle, Torain doesn't show enough elusiveness to be a #1 back, IMO. If you think he does, we'll find out who's right in time.

A #1 WR in the NFL should often require double teams. Anthony Armstrong is a good story, but he looks like a #2 to me.

I'd disagree with the remark about Parcells in that he left a solid base whereever he went.

I don't know what kind of "base" Parcells left at his four stops and I don't believe you do either. All we know is that the teams he left must have had some decent talent. Did the personnel he left fit the new schemes? Who in the hell knows?

[Thiebear]

We have no QA, no RB, no WR.

His options on 'building' a team seem rather forced to me.

[TheLongshot]

Gosh. You value your opinion on young personnel over mine. Who would have guessed that?

I value the opinion of the coaching staff over both of us. I have already admitted that I know little about a lot of things about selecting players for a football team. My point is that there is a lot you don't know, and making claims in ignorance (By saying that it is unlikely that the young players you haven't seen play will bud into starters.), you don't help your argument.

BTW, you still haven't answered how signing a bunch of undrafted and unproven players would make you feel any better about the concerns above. IMO, you are just adding a bunch more players that are just as "unlikely" to be starters in the NFL.

You have a history of unrealistic optimism with personnel. I recall debating with you on this same topic in 2005 when you were high on the potential of Jim Molinaro and Mark Wilson. You have similar arguments with posters every year. Now, you're claiming to know enough to project Selvish Capers as a legit prospect. The fact is, neither of use has enough evidence to judge Capers, but we know that the odds are against him becoming an NFL grade starter.

I doubt it was me, considering that I joined in 2005 and Wilson was already on his way out. I doubt I was "high" on either player either. What probably you are remembering that I used them as examples of the Redskins not "ignoring" the OL. Course, later on they didn't follow it up and it was the lack of draft picks that lead to the downfall of the OL.

I don't know if Capers is legit or not. Nor do you. I also doubt that Capers will be the only prospect in camp. But, I also don't feel that to "prove" whether or not he is legit is to throw him in the fire, especially when there is a learning curve in the NFL. That seems to be what you are advocating.

In addition to being brittle, Torain doesn't show enough elusiveness to be a #1 back, IMO. If you think he does, we'll find out who's right in time.

I'm not high on Torain either due to his history of being injury prone. My comment didn't have to do with Torain alone, tho. We know little about Andre Brown, James Davis, Shawnbrey McNeal and Chad Simpson. Given Shanahan's history, it isn't unrealistic to think that from all of these guys that he can cobble together a pretty good running game.

A #1 WR in the NFL should often require double teams. Anthony Armstrong is a good story, but he looks like a #2 to me.

I don't see him as a #1 WR either. Personally, I see him as a slot receiver who is at his best going against the other team's #3 CB.

That is the reason why I'd want Moss back, rather than depend on a draft where the last legit NFL WR we drafted was Art Monk. That's why, to me, trading him makes no sense, because we are unlikely to get the value back.

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot -- I value the opinion of the coaching staff over both of us.

So would I if one could believe them, but years ol listening to coaches hype young players has taught me that we can't.

...My point is that there is a lot you don't know, and making claims in ignorance (By saying that it is unlikely that the young players you haven't seen play will bud into starters.), you don't help your argument.

I'll say it again, but this time I'll make it easier for you to understand... It is unlikely that Selvish Capers will become a bona fide NFL starter because experience has shown that the odds are decidedly against ANY individual player in his situation making the grade.

BTW, you still haven't answered how signing a bunch of undrafted and unproven players would make you feel any better about the concerns above. IMO, you are just adding a bunch more players that are just as "unlikely" to be starters in the NFL.

Goodness. You couldn't figure this out on your own?

Taken as individuals, undrafted players, are unlikely to become an NFL player. But, if a team brings in 20 for trials, the team is twice as likely to find an NFL player in the bunch as the team that brings in 10.

I'm not high on Torain either due to his history of being injury prone. My comment didn't have to do with Torain alone, tho. We know little about Andre Brown, James Davis, Shawnbrey McNeal and Chad Simpson. Given Shanahan's history, it isn't unrealistic to think that from all of these guys that he can cobble together a pretty good running game.

That may be, but our topic here was about building a solid core; and one of those core players would be a #1 RB. How to "cobble together a pretty good running game" wasn't our topic. In Denver, Mike had two good RBs. The rest were overrated by fans fooled by scheme-produced stats.

That is the reason why I'd want Moss back, rather than depend on a draft where the last legit NFL WR we drafted was Art Monk. That's why, to me, trading him makes no sense, because we are unlikely to get the value back.

Yes, I understood your position from your previous posts. I disagree.

[TheLongshot]

So would I if one could believe them, but years ol listening to coaches hype young players has taught me that we can't.

You know that there is a difference between what a coach says publically and what he actually does. The "opinion" that matters is where the player stands on the roster.

I'll say it again, but this time I'll make it easier for you to understand... It is unlikely that Selvish Capers will become a bona fide NFL starter because experience has shown that the odds are decidedly against ANY individual player in his situation making the grade.

Which you can say for about any player, say, past the third round. Considering that I think that it was unlikely that any of our players would have fetched at least a third round pick from another team last year (You can argue Cooley, but I think a player coming off an injury will be devalued unless there is some desperate need by another team.), I don't think the return was going to be there. And, unless it is a player who you do not have plans for and want off your roster, it doesn't make much sense to deal them for less.

Goodness. You couldn't figure this out on your own?

Taken as individuals, undrafted players, are unlikely to become an NFL player. But, if a team brings in 20 for trials, the team is twice as likely to find an NFL player in the bunch as the team that brings in 10.

There is a difference between "bringing players in for trials" (which all NFL teams do) and actually putting them on the field in the regular season over more experienced veterans just because. No business runs things that way, and I'm not sure why you think the NFL should be different: If you don't impress on an interview, you don't get a shot at making the team. If you show promise but are a little raw, you don't get rid of your more experienced employees to have him run the show. You mentor him and through that see if he has the stuff to move up to your front line.

That may be, but our topic here was about building a solid core; and one of those core players would be a #1 RB.

Actually, the days where one guy carry the RB position are going away in the NFL. While I agree that Shanahan has had only two great RBs in his career, he rarely has had a running game that wasn't productive. Considering that during that time he mostly didn't have great QB play, I don't see how people were "fooled" by that.