When will we EVER learn? Redskins fans, some of the biggest hypocrites around .....

[Chump Bailey]

We've got a lot of young players who deserve a real shot at meaningful snaps:

Defense:

Barnes at CB

Jarmon at DE

Jenkins at DE/NT (if not this year, then next)

Riley and Henson at ILB

Kerrigan and Wilson at OLB

Kareem Moore at FS

Jackson at the nickle end

Neild at backup NT and jumbo tackle

Gomes/Thompson at the dime package

I think that ship has sailed steve. Moore played pretty dreadful IIRC and FS was a priority. I really hope Jarmon can make the transistion from 43 DE to 34. He was playing well opposite Rak when Albert was in the middle doing his thing. I still have regrets about that. Jenkins will get a legit shot. Barnes can play, but I don't see the harm playing him at NB would cause. I would love to get Chris Houston to take Carlos's place, but Detroit will wrap him up with a new deal I think. Completely agree about Riley and Henson. Need to see what they can do.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 07:24 AM ----------

Building a roster through free agency is like furnishing your home with the stuff collected at garage sales.

Building:Yes

Augmenting:No

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Houston's a good call Chump man, but I just read yesterday funnily enough that the Lions are interested in re-signing him as soon as the lock-outs over. Talks broke down before the collapse of the CBA, but he's since changed his agent apparently.

Totally with you on Moore. Three years in, the dudes fundamentals aren't getting any better. He looks lost out there at times. And if I had a nickel for every open field tackle he **** out of .....

Hail.

[Chump Bailey]

Houston's a good call Chump man, but I just read yesterday funnily enough that the Lions are interested in re-signing him as soon as the lock-outs over. Talks broke down before the collapse of the CBA, but he's since changed his agent apparently.

Totally with you on Moore. Three years in, the dudes fundamentals are getting any better. He looks lost out there at times. And if I had a nickel for every open field tackle he ***** out of .....

Hail.

Thanks GHH - Houston's likely a pipe dream, but I liked how Detroit traded for him and DE Lawrence Jackson. Both solid moves and I wish Houston would have been on our radar.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is turning into a thread about youth fetishes.

Elliot Stabler would be calling a lot of you "Sick sons of ****es" right about now.

[Going Commando]

...My point was that, contrary to what you posted, we could just as easily name the same amount of young "talent" on offense worthy of playing time as young "talent" on defense.

You didn't say "outside of WR/TE and HB"...you said "On offense we have barely any young/drafted talent whatsoever"--meaning, the ENTIRE offense, not just QB and OL.

DG was right, you are looking to argue rather than actually discuss. You're getting pedantic about a point I don't really care about. Have fun. The gist of my original point is that the offense is lacking in quality young talent and that's absolutely true. Further, the young talent on the defense is better and more numerous/evenly distributed, which is also true. Comparing the offense to the defense doesn't actually interest me at all, it was a pedantic throwaway observation that has very little to do with the more general discussion going on in this thread.

What would be an adequate number of young talent on offense and on the team? And what would be considered "young"?

If our team were on the right track, approximately 35 players on our roster next season would be our draft picks. If our team were properly rebuilding, almost all of our core would be 27 or younger.

You're acting like this is a nebulous or obscure concept when it's not at all.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just want to point out that the Steelers have six defensive starters over 32.

[Going Commando]

I think that ship has sailed steve. Moore played pretty dreadful IIRC and FS was a priority. I really hope Jarmon can make the transistion from 43 DE to 34. He was playing well opposite Rak when Albert was in the middle doing his thing. I still have regrets about that. Jenkins will get a legit shot. Barnes can play, but I don't see the harm playing him at NB would cause. I would love to get Chris Houston to take Carlos's place, but Detroit will wrap him up with a new deal I think. Completely agree about Riley and Henson. Need to see what they can do.

Moore was hurt last season. It's no stretch of the imagination to think his struggles in the box were a result of his MCL tear and surgery. He probably came back too quickly and wasn't as fast or comfortable as he needed to be. Moore kicked ass in TC and the preseason until he got hurt, that's probably a more accurate gauge of his ability than his injury riddled performances during the middle of the season. LaRon loved playing with Kareem and thought he was the best safety on the roster (after himself). He's not going to get a chance to start now unless Atogwe gets hurt. I never liked the Atogwe signing and still don't.

I hope Jarmon can solidify a role as a starting DE. His weight fluctuation last season ended up making it a lost year of sorts. Now that he's settled on a position and has had time to get comfortable, I hope its enough for him to play well. We need him to be good because he's our only defensive lineman that can really pass rush.

I think Barnes should start because he's a quality young option that doesn't require us to go outside the team to find somebody. This is the natural progression of things for a draft pick in the first three rounds. They either start and stick or fail and you move on.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 09:15 AM ----------

Just want to point out that the Steelers have six defensive starters over 32.

The Steelers aren't a rebuilding team/perennial loser. They've won two Superbowls and been to the playoffs seven times this decade. They can afford to be old because they're actually good and the future is now for them.

[The Tris]

Just want to point out that the Steelers have six defensive starters over 32.

I believe having an older team when you are regularly going to the Super Bowl is quite different than having an older team when you are 16 games under .500 over the past 5 years.

[Oldfan]

...If our team were on the right track, approximately 35 players on our roster next season would be our draft picks. If our team were properly rebuilding, almost all of our core would be 27 or younger..l.

Using Pro Football Reference, I count 18 drafted players on the 2010 roster. We will probably lose Rocky and Carlos. So, in order to get to 35 drafted players, we would need 19 more. If we draft reasonably well (hit rate about 40%), and have the normal turn rate, we'll get to 35 in the year 2056.

[Going Commando]

Good point.

I am not talking to you anymore because every time I do, I come away feeling dumb. First it was Tyreek Evans and now this.

LOL! Actually I'll defer to you on NBA and basketball observations MLSKINS. The Tyreke Evans small forward debate was just an odd situation relegated almost entirely to Sacramento fans that I happened to pick up on because I actually read about their team and catch their games whenever I can. Almost no general NBA fans or the national media followed Tyreke Evans down the stretch because the Kings were bad. I started following them during the summer league when I realized they were sort of a strange mirror version of ours. Plus I've been following DeMarcus Cousins just in case he's a Wizard one day. Plus I have Tyreke Evans on several of my fantasy teams.

Football is my first love though. Heaven forbid someone on the internet says something I disagree with when it comes to team building/roster construction because I will argue until the cows come home.

[Boss_Hogg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Blame the Madden video game.

[Going Commando]

Using Pro Football Reference, I count 18 drafted players on the 2010 roster. We will probably lose Rocky and Carlos. So, in order to get to 35 drafted players, we would need 19 more. If we draft reasonably well (hit rate about 40%), and have the normal turn rate, we'll get to 35 in the year 2056.

Supposedly during week 17 we had 23 players on the roster (or on injured reserve) who were Redskins draft picks. We did have a lot of players on IR last season so that might be where the difference in your number is coming from.

The thing about having so few draft picks in your core is that it probably means you're fringe talent has a better chance of sticking--later round draft picks and UDFAs. That means our hit rate could reasonably be expected to be higher than the norm (which I realize doesn't necessarily mean we're getting more talented). Plus we just drafted a 12 man class. That's going to help eventually once some of those guys make the team or get promoted from the practice squad. We've also had good luck with UDFAs, who pretty much fulfill the same role as draft picks since they are usually young.

Let's say Rocky and Carlos both walk. Kedric Golston will probably walk too. Dockery will get cut. Chris Horton or Reed Doughty probably leaves or gets dealt soon. I think H.B. Blades stays because of his special teams value but I also think he's firmly behind Riley and Henson in our long term plans. I hope CBs get some promotions from within. I like Barnes and Brandyn Thompson interests me as a guy who could make the roster as a 5th corner this year. Deangelo was a good FA signing because he's still fairly young. Phil Buchanon doesn't offer much in the way of long term future but we don't have a viable nickel for the upcoming season without him. Maybe DeJon Gomes can make the team and fill this role down the line.

We're in good shape with our linebackers as almost all of our guys are draft picks or UDFAs who've shown enough to stick. Kerrigan and Orakpo should hopefully be a good starting tandem. Rob Jackson actually showed really well for himself as the nickel rusher at the end of last season. Lorenzo was a savvy UDFA signing a couple years ago and he's become a leader and special teams force worth keeping around. Like I mentioned earlier, I think at least one of Riley and Henson can become a quality starting ILB. Markus White could possibly make the team as a backup rusher. Per capita, most of our draft picks and bargain acquisitions have been linebackers when you think about it.

I feel surprisingly good about the talent on our defensive line if Jarmon breaks out as a good starting DE this year. Carriker was a smart bargain bin outside acquisition who came into his own as a starter late last season. Jarmon has potential as the pass rusher in our rotation. Jenkins can hopefully settle into the role of run stopper at 5 technique and NT in the rotation. Bryant was another decent FA bargain although he's aging. Sometimes power NTs play for a while though. If not, I think Jenkins has a future as a starting NT and Chris Neild was a very smart late round choice who I think will make the roster this year. Vince Oghobaase is a quality UDFA who could get promoted from the PS this year and contribute as a run defending DE. I think you've got at least five decent guys who are under 27 and cheap at a 7 man position group. We're doing well here. We could always stand to upgrade some of our existing talent if elite options present themselves in the draft, but the group has a surprising amount of quality already.

On offense we've got a lot of draft picks at the skill positions who cancel each other out unfortunately. Malcolm Kelly might get cut. Not all of Terrence Austin, Niles Paul, Aldrick Robinson, and Leonard Hankerson are going to make the roster because Armstrong and Banks are in command of spots. My biggest hope is that Kelly works out and becomes a quality starter and red zone threat. I also hope Austin makes the team as a 6th WR because of his special teams versatility (strong and fast and a good hitter). Of the rookies, I really like Robinson and Hankerson is obviously in our plans as an eventual starter. I'd honestly be happy going into this season with Armstrong (a burgeoning star int he vein of Greg Jennings IMO), Kelly, Hankerson (getting a fair amount of snaps as a #3 in his rookie year), Robinson (I really like his game), Banks (the return specialist), Armstrong (James Thrash like role). Six good, mostly young receivers who can perform a variety of roles.

At HB, Torain and James Davis were young, lowkey FAs who are basically draft picks and Keiland Williams is a UDFA plus we've got Royster and Helu Jr. from this year's class. That means that position group will be constructed almost entirely of quality young options, which is good, but two of those players won't make the roster because of the other three. I really like Royster's vision and running style and think he could be hugely productive in a proper Mike Shanahan running game. I think you need Roy Helu's breakaway speed in the backfield since we wouldn't have any fast backs aside from him. I think you can also keep Torain and Williams around because they were productive last season and Williams catches the ball well. I think you probably use this season to figure out which one of them you prefer long term and stash Royster on the PS for now (unless he's really really good in camp). I think you eventually settle on one of Williams or Torain as your bruiser, Helu as your speed guy, and Royster as an all around back who can thrive in a lead role.

We're not very good on the OL. I'm not expecting much from Maurice Hurt at all, who looks like a PS guy at best. Eric Cook has some promise at center I hope, at least as a backup. That might be wishful thinking though. Lichtensteiger counts as a bargain barrel acquisition but he's going to have to improve next year in order to justify himself as a starter. Will Montgomery probably needs to be retained since he was one of our few decent linemen last year but really, he's just a guy and can certainly use an upgrade. I hope Selvish Capers can stick around as at least a backup guard but you can't pin any hopes on him. We could very probably be in a situation where our only quality young drafted offensive lineman (in a 9 or 10 man group) is Trent Williams. That's unacceptable and untenable. The QB situation is awful too unless John Beck is much, much better than I expect.

The most important thing to do in next year's draft/UDFA period is to improve our roster quality at QB and on the OL. These are the two most important position groups IMO and they are our two weakest units by far. I want to see us add some elite talent here before I feel good about our long term outlook.

[Mahons21]

If our team were on the right track, approximately 35 players on our roster next season would be our draft picks. If our team were properly rebuilding, almost all of our core would be 27 or younger.

How on earth do you come up with these benchmarks? And it would take 5 years and a 100% hit rate with regular drafting to attain 35 draft picks.

In addition, I'm yet to here about all these talented young players that the Redskins have kept at the bottom of the depth chart due to their activity in FA. So far the list is:

Antonio Pierce

Ryan Clark (EDIT: Ryan Clark was a FA pickup)

***important to note that both young talented players had roles as starters at some point during their tenure in WSH.

[Going Commando]

Those benchmarks come from the sorts of numbers the best teams in the league have on their rosters. For instance, the Colts had 41 of their drafted players on their roster last season; Green Bay had 39; Pittsburgh had 39; New England had 35; Baltimore had 33; Philadelphia had 30. These numbers are absolutely realistic for a good franchise because nearly all of the good franchises reach them. These are good teams with great QBs that can compete for a Superbowl every season. They are the teams that can afford big ticket FA signings because their window is open right now, and yet they each still build primarily through the draft.

[Mahons21]

All you're showing is that longer tenured FO's will build more of their players, and they also happen to be winners, that's obvious. When you having a coaching carousel and players of the previous regime no longer fit the plans, then you end up losing a lot of your drafted players. Outside of GB(extremely small market team) all of those staffs have been in place for how long? You also have to take into account neither IND/PIT changed their game plan/staff when the acquired a new HC.

It should also be pointed out that in Thompson's 2nd off-season as GM he acquired; Woodson, Pickett, and Manuel, all 3 players started for the packers the following season.

What about teams with relatively new staffs that are having success? KC, NYJ, ATL, NO come to mind. Do you have a link to some page that shows you how many players are drafted by the team?

[Oldfan]

Steve ~ Supposedly during week 17 we had 23 players on the roster (or on injured reserve) who were Redskins draft picks. We did have a lot of players on IR last season so that might be where the difference in your number is coming from.

I had forgotten about IR. Your 23 number and your 35 number includes IR, I assume.

The thing about having so few draft picks in your core is that it probably means you're fringe talent has a better chance of sticking--later round draft picks and UDFAs. That means our hit rate could reasonably be expected to be higher than the norm (which I realize doesn't necessarily mean we're getting more talented).

That’s a valid point.

Plus we just drafted a 12 man class. That's going to help eventually once some of those guys make the team or get promoted from the practice squad. We've also had good luck with UDFAs, who pretty much fulfill the same role as draft picks since they are usually young.

I don’t think we can pencil in a higher yield from this draft because we had 12 picks since the average draft position dropped. But I like the chances of it working out for us.

I’m thinking that UDFAs and young UFAs, who can be brought in with little risk, are our best hope of adding depth. I’m not in favor of becoming the high bidder for sought-after free agents as you know.

Let's say Rocky and Carlos both walk. Kedric Golston will probably walk too. Dockery will get cut. Chris Horton or Reed Doughty probably leaves or gets dealt soon. I think H.B. Blades stays because of his special teams value but I also think he's firmly behind Riley and Henson in our long term plans. I hope CBs get some promotions from within. I like Barnes and Brandyn Thompson interests me as a guy who could make the roster as a 5th corner this year. Deangelo was a good FA signing because he's still fairly young. Phil Buchanon doesn't offer much in the way of long term future but we don't have a viable nickel for the upcoming season without him. Maybe DeJon Gomes can make the team and fill this role down the line.

I like Barnes’s chances a lot because of the intelligence factor. I give that high weight in the secondary.

Dockery has already been released.

We're in good shape with our linebackers as almost all of our guys are draft picks or UDFAs who've shown enough to stick.

Agreed.

I feel surprisingly good about the talent on our defensive line if Jarmon breaks out as a good starting DE this year.

I’ll need to see more. You know more about the young ones than I do, though. So the fact that you like them raises my hopes

I think you need Roy Helu's breakaway speed in the backfield since we wouldn't have any fast backs aside from him. I think you can also keep Torain and Williams around because they were productive last season and Williams catches the ball well. I think you probably use this season to figure out which one of them you prefer long term and stash Royster on the PS for now (unless he's really really good in camp). I think you eventually settle on one of Williams or Torain as your bruiser, Helu as your speed guy, and Royster as an all around back who can thrive in a lead role.

It’s hard to tell what Mike might be thinking, but today’s RB has to fit well into the passing game for most teams. And, the idea of specialists doesn’t work out well since defenses are tipped off. So, the least versatile RB is going to be a cut on most NFL teams unless he’s one helluva runner.

We could very probably be in a situation where our only quality young drafted offensive lineman (in a 9 or 10 man group) is Trent Williams. That's unacceptable and untenable.

I’m not even sure we can count on Trent. I want to cut him some slack because I realize that he was thrown into the fire in his rookie year, but the man had 11.5 sacks charged against him in 14 games. I think Ryan Clady has been tagged with 14 sacks in 48 games. Trent is going to have to pick it up this season.

The QB situation is awful too unless John Beck is much, much better than I expect.

I’m not as keen as you are on drafting a QB in the first round. High risk, high gain.

I think the Steve Young move ( trade a low pick for a draft bust who played for a lousy team) could work more often with a keen eye like Mike Shanahan doing the selection. John Beck fits the Steve Young pattern.

I recall Mike saying that a QB’s height doesn’t bother him because QBs aren’t often throwing over six-six linemen anyway. So, logically, Beck’s low release point didn’t bother Mike.

I think he really likes the guy, and he could be right.

The most important thing to do in next year's draft/UDFA period is to improve our roster quality at QB and on the OL. These are the two most important position groups IMO and they are our two weakest units by far. I want to see us add some elite talent here before I feel good about our long term outlook.

Except for the way we fill that QB slot, we’re on the same page.

[addicted]

This is where people get in trouble when they start using absolutes to make decisions. You do not throw out absolutes like "throw out the top 3 paid players" and you don't take yourself out of considerations because of "who we think will be the most paid".

You should if your a rebuilding team

There is ZERO reason in my eyes to even remotely consider Naamdi for this team. Yet you want to mention him:

If Nnamdi's price was a $7 million signing bonus and $4 million a year, would you sign him? Of course. I realize he will go for much more than this but if you follow your logic, we miss out on great bargains. The right way is to identify the players in rank order who fit your scheme and team the best; you consider things like health and age also. Then you make offers. You start low and work your way up but avoid getting into a bidding war. A good GM knows when the value is not worth it and then you move on to your second choice. But you do not ignore the top three players at a position or refuse to speak with a guy because you "think" he may be too expensive.

Ok I will ignore the sillyness of what you posted here because you didn't say anything at all as to what my point was or say anything I didn't already know.

My point is that as a rebuilding team there is no reason, ZERO reason in my eyes to be going after any older veteran player who would be at the top of the free agency pool

In my mind we need players, we need a lot of talented guys here

The best way to get the most bang for our buck is to not go after the Hanyesworths or prized guys at all, regardless of if you think they fit our scheme or not. The problem with going after top tiered players includes dumping too much money into a single player and not having enough for other guys

Call it a Walmart philosophy if you want. Getting a top paid player limits us from spending more money on other players.

Lining up guys as far as best to worst and from top to bottom for paychecks and then eliminating the most likely to get paid the most money also helps limit the "bust" factor in case that guy doesn't pan out

You want us to put it all in the same basket...that never works

Are we seriously one position player away from a championship? Of course not

My strategy means that we use our money wisely and cautiously. It also means more money to go around to other players. It means we can raise the floor on the talent level on the bench and starters

Or we can just load the boat up for someone like Holmes or Namdi and watch as once again we screw ourselves.

It's better to me to get 7-10 lesser talented guys here to help the team then to get 1-3 big name guys with the team we have,

Our problem in the past has been a lack of a patience to determine real value in a player and going after players that had issues either physical or mental (e.g. AH).

No our problem in the past is doing what you said we should do.

Our problems been seeing that one shinny new toy and buying that one instead of spending the same amount of money and getting 5 or 6 other new toys

[KCClybun]

You know...going back and looking at the New England Patriots drafts, this whole "Belichick is a draft WIZARD" thing is really from the drafts he had in the past two years. Going back further than 2009 reveals holes in that theory. He usually hit on his first rounders, but there's a lot of guys here I've never seen hit the field in a Patriots jersey.

It's only been the last couple seasons where he really hoarded draft picks, and they were all high draft picks at that.

Bill really does pay for a lot of veteran free agents who are either in their thirties or getting to their thirties to come in and start for him. These last two seasons have been the "youth movement" seasons, and even this 2011 Draft is kind of puzzling. Drafting two running backs when you have Benjarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead performing and blocking well, drafting a guard with a cancer diagnosis, drafting no pass rushers...

...Maybe using the Pats as a template for how you successfully build a team is the wrong way, because even with our meager draft takes in recent years, at least most of those guys ended up on the sideline or on practice squad...

[addicted]

You wouldn't sign Ashomaongauglaugguaogogooa?

Hell no, that would be beyond stupid to me bro. Sorry

[Going Commando]

All you're showing is that longer tenured FO's will build more of their players, and they also happen to be winners, that's obvious. When you having a coaching carousel and players of the previous regime no longer fit the plans, then you end up losing a lot of your drafted players. Outside of GB(extremely small market team) all of those staffs have been in place for how long? You also have to take into account neither IND/PIT changed their game plan/staff when the acquired a new HC.

What about teams with relatively new staffs that are having success? KC, NYJ, ATL, NO come to mind. Do you have a link to some page that shows you how many players are drafted by the team?

That's a fair point, but Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Indianapolis have gone through regime changes recently. Also, regime change doesn't totally explain away downright bad drafting. Good drafting teams going through regime changes still put a lot of drafted players into the league in general, even if they don't stay on their own roster (which is the case for those teams I mentioned). And those elite teams have an additional challenge keeping their draft picks because their rosters are already saturated so it evens out over time.

I got these numbers from the ESPN the Magazine draft issue. I don't know anywhere online where you can find them. I can count the numbers on those four franchises you listed:

-- KC is actually one of the worst drafting teams the past decade and only recently started to turn things around in the past three classes--a pretty good 2008 group plus outstanding 2009 and 2010 classes upon Pioli's arrival. Here are their numbers for week 17 last year: tied for league low with 23 players drafted on team, tied for second to last in the league with 36 players drafted still in the league. I'm a big fan of the way they've built their team moving forward though and I think their drafting problems are coming to an end. The fact that they are as good as they are now is a testament to how well they've been able to draft and get those picks to produce with immediacy. This 2011 class was also excellent for them. If you crush 3 or 4 draft classes in a row, you will get better. Parcells demonstrated this in Dallas too.

That's why I don't think it'll take as long to get good as that 35 number suggests.

The Jets have been a hit or miss drafting team. They've got 41 players drafted in the league but only 23 of them were on their roster for week 17. I think the way they've been able to be so good two years running is explained in the way they've drafted at certain positions. Specifically, when you look at their career value index as calculated by the author of the charts in the article, the Jets have multiple, really high career value guys drafted on their offensive line, defensive line, linebackers, and defensive backs. Their career value is actually almost identical to Baltimore's when stacked side by side despite the fact they've hit on far fewer of their draft picks this decade. In other words, they've somehow managed to hit home runs on the majority of their picks in their most important position groups and they got freaking lucky that Mark Sanchez played as well as he did as a rookie and sophomore during the latter half of the season to keep them competitive. They also got freaking lucky with massively discounted trades from everybody including Cleveland and Pittsburgh to help infuse their team with quality youngish talent. They're flirting with a dangerous method of team building though. When those home runs stop coming and the older ones age, the Jets will have no core to replace them with. They draft too infrequently and rely too heavily on trades and free agency to sustain their success for long. You can already see problems coming in the massive amounts of money they're having to commit to Harris, Mangold, Ferguson, and Revis in order to keep their core in tact.

And honestly, it wasn't that long ago that the Jets were frequently picking in the top ten.

-- New Orleans also hasn't had the kind of run of sustained success that the other league elites have had and I think the evidence for that is in their poorish draft history. They had 39 players in the league drafted, only 25 of them on their roster. I think that explains why they make the NFC championship one year, miss the playoffs the next, win a Superbowl the next, then lose to a 7-9 team in the WC round the next. They have no depth and are subject to the vagaries of injuries and uneven play from their few stars. Having a transcendent QB emerge from free agency is probably the only reason they are competitive. The only position groups they've gotten above average career value from are WR and OL.

-- Atlanta is building in the mold of the more traditional powers, which is why I think they're here to stay. They have 50 players drafted still in the league and 30 were still on their roster at the end of last season. They've also drafted quarterbacks, receivers, offensive linemen, linebackers, and especially defensive linemen particularly well. Of the four QBs drafted by the Falcons in the league at week 17 last year, Matt Ryan was actually the one with the lowest career value to date. Also all 8 Falcons drafted defensive linemen in the league last year were still on the team. The Falcons are the best bet of the "newer" powers to sustain their recent success over a long period of time like the Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Eagles, and Patriots have done.

[The Tris]

You know...going back and looking at the New England Patriots drafts, this whole "Belichick is a draft WIZARD" thing is really from the drafts he had in the past two years. Going back further than 2009 reveals holes in that theory. He usually hit on his first rounders, but there's a lot of guys here I've never seen hit the field in a Patriots jersey.

You are not going back far enough.

[KCClybun]

You are not going back far enough.

I'm going all the way back to 2001. Like I said, the Pats usually hit on the first round picks. But I'm going through all the pages and I'm seeing a lot of guys who never made it. I'm talking about guys they drafted in the second round (though there's those guys here), not just anybody.

Maybe I'm just missing it, and some classes are better than others, but it's just one more thing that pokes holes in the whole "the Patriots draft lots of young guys and don't add a lot of free agents" theory.

[The Tris]

-- Atlanta is building in the mold of the more traditional powers, which is why I think they're here to stay. They have 50 players drafted still in the league and 30 were still on their roster at the end of last season. They've also drafted quarterbacks, receivers, offensive linemen, linebackers, and especially defensive linemen particularly well. Of the four QBs drafted by the Falcons in the league at week 17 last year, Matt Ryan was actually the one with the lowest career value to date. Also all 8 Falcons drafted defensive linemen in the league last year were still on the team. The Falcons are the best bet of the "newer" powers to sustain their recent success over a long period of time like the Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Eagles, and Patriots have done.

I am pretty familar with the Falcons obviously. I have a whole lot of respect for Thomas Dmitroff, and Arthur Blank for stepping back from the front lines and hiring a young GM with vision of how to build a long term contender.

That being said, the best thing to happen to the Falcons was Michael Vick's suspension and prison sentence.

Without that, they never would have completely bottomed out as a franchise, and would have continued to bounce just below the NFL elites with 9 and 10 win seasons.

By being forced to rebuild from the bottom, they embraced a long term strategy of team building, primary centered on building around a young QB with primarily draft picks. Yes, they supplimented this with an average of one annual large FA acquisition, but Dmitroff has stayed true to the Belichick philosophy of collecting and retaining draft picks, and filling the starting ranks with home grown players.

The problem with the Redskins is they have never truly bottomed out, and the closest they came was the worse crop of college QBs in years. Why have we never bottomed out? Because its bad for business. It's better to keep that dim flicker of hope in fans eyes with large FA classes and a promise that this is the year. And to be honest, I can't think of one team that bottomed out intentionally. The closest I can come up with is the 2009 Bucs.

[Mahons21]

That's a fair point, but Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Indianapolis have gone through regime changes recently. Also, regime change doesn't totally explain away downright bad drafting. Good drafting teams going through regime changes still put a lot of drafted players into the league in general, even if they don't stay on their own roster (which is the case for those teams I mentioned). And those elite teams have an additional challenge keeping their draft picks because their rosters are already saturated so it evens out over time.

They weren't really regime changes in PIT/IND, they were more promoting coaches from within and retaining the same staff, I don't know enough about the BAL change. I don't think in any of these situations did the person in charge of personnel change though.

Good drafting teams are essentially the teams that have the most draft picks in my opinion. They don't trade picks for Vets, and they trade their vets for picks.

I got these numbers from the ESPN the Magazine draft issue. I don't know anywhere online where you can find them. I can count the numbers on those four franchises you listed:

Appreciate it man.

I personally think KC or NO have the best chance of those teams to build a sustained winner, I'm just not buying what Atlanta is selling. If you got some time later on could you do the Chargers as well?

[The Tris]

I'm going all the way back to 2001. Like I said, the Pats usually hit on the first round picks. But I'm going through all the pages and I'm seeing a lot of guys who never made it. I'm talking about guys they drafted in the second round (though there's those guys here), not just anybody.

Maybe I'm just missing it, and some classes are better than others, but it's just one more thing that pokes holes in the whole "the Patriots draft lots of young guys and don't add a lot of free agents" theory.

From 2001-2005, the Pats drafted Richard Seymour, Matt Light, Deion Branch, Jarvis Green, Ty Warren, Asante Samuel, Dan Koppen, Vince Wilfork, Logan Mankins, Nick Kaczur, and Matt Cassel.

20 of their 22 starters this season were drafted by the Pats. It would have been 21 of 22 had Ty Warren not been injured in preseason. Wes Welker was the only preseason starter who was not drafted by the Pats.