themurf Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (photo by Brian Murphy) If there is a defining characteristic of the Washington Redskins during the Daniel Snyder era, it’s that every year the front office talks itself into believing the franchise is close to turning the corner toward respectability which can only mean they’re just one or two moves away from contending with the big boys. What happens next is well documented. The Redskins cut corners and throw money at any available players with name recognition because, let’s be honest, it’s more fun to try and win now rather than build for tomorrow. So they steal headlines throughout the offseason and then proceed to return to irrelevance once actual football games begin. Rinse, wash, repeat. Sure, once every few years they get lucky enough to back into the postseason, but more often than not Washington’s journey ends with yet another 10-loss season. Of course, as anyone who has followed professional football in the last decade or so knows, the vast majority of the high-priced free agents the Redskins land are ultimately known more for their bloated contracts than anything they do on a football field. But, really, who is keeping track anyways? In related news, the NFL Network put together a top 10 list of the worst free agent signings of all time. It should come as no surprise that first place on that list was awarded to “ .”No seriously. The Redskins have made so many terrible decisions in free agency over the years that the good folks at the NFL Network couldn’t pick just one. They basically awarded Washington the lifetime achievement award for giving out awful contracts. “Over the last decade and a half, no team has taken a more active role or spent more money in free agency and gotten less in return than the Washington Redskins,” the narrator said. What follows during the five-minute segment is a trip down memory lane featuring such D.C. legends as: Deion Sanders, Dana Stubblefield, Adam Archuleta, Antwaan Randle El, Bruce Smith, Jeff George and Albert Haynesworth.* *Look, I fully admit that every once in a while a free agent signing does work out, but guys like London Fletcher, Andre Carter or Marcus Washington are the exception to the rule. The franchise strikes out a helluva lot more often than they hit a home run when it comes to free agency. And yet, lucrative free agent signings are as much of a staple in our nation’s capital as corrupt politicians, museums and monuments. Why? Because scouting and drafting players takes plenty of time, energy and resources. Signing aging veterans to bloated contracts, on the other hand, is much easier. Just turn on Madden ‘12, see what the player’s rating is in the video game and then offer that player twice as much as anyone else would because you want to make sure you land the biggest name in free agency each and every year. While other professional sports franchises are adopting “Moneyball” mentalities and embracing a new way of doing business, the Redskins can’t help but continue to play fantasy football. In the eyes of Redskins’ management, you’d have to ever wonder why any sane team would draft Andrew Luck in hopes that he becomes the next Peyton Manning when you could just go out and acquire Peyton Manning. At least, that’s the mindset the front office had until Mike Shanahan got involved. Once the two-time Super Bowl winning head coach took over, mercifully it was time for the Redskins to start acting like they belonged at the grown-up table. Yes, he too tried to take a short cut by trading for Donovan McNabb. Even though he talked about being here for at least the five years on his contract and spoke about trying to build a consistent winner, Shanahan fell into the trap and bought into the believe that McNabb was the missing link in Washington. And once again, Washington’s splashy offseason acquisition was a colossal failure once it was time to step onto the football field. But here’s what I respect most about Shanahan – he knows when he’s wrong. He might not rush out and hold a press conference to tell the world he made a mistake, but he’s at least able to see when something isn’t working and willing to take action. So McNabb was gone almost as quickly as he arrived. And for the same reason, Haynesworth was shown the door as well. What transpired next is something I can honestly say I didn’t see coming. Shanahan and the Redskins apparently learned from their mistakes. Last offseason, the Redskins didn’t make any headline-stealing signings. They didn’t break the bank to lure the biggest names available. Instead, they signed a bunch of blue-collar guys like Barry Cofield, Stephen Bowen and Chris Chester who a good chunk of football fans had never heard of. Additionally, the front office traded for unheralded guys such as Jabar Gaffney and Tim Hightower, who were brought in because their specific skill sets added something this team was lacking. And best of all, the Redskins actually applied themselves on draft day and walked away with a dozen new players in an attempt to develop legitimate depth for the first time in recent history. Watching the Redskins pass up a potential franchise quarterback, in Blaine Gabbert, to trade back and add extra picks during the first round of the 2011 draft was an out-of-body experience for most ‘Skins fans. The Redskins have lacked a franchise quarterback for more than 20 years and Gabbert was one of the marquee names in last year’s draft. And yet, Shanahan opted to trade down and stockpile picks. Washington eventually selected a pass rusher by the name of Ryan Kerrigan, and was rewarded when he became the team’s only defensive player who didn’t miss a single snap all season long. So even though the Redskins went just 5-11 last season, I was encouraged by what I saw because the front office finally stopped trying to cut corners. They stopped trying to win the offseason. Instead, they became just another boring NFL franchise trying to win the right way. Shanahan’s actions during free agency, trades and the draft were designed to build a foundation rather than sell jerseys and/or make headlines. He showed patience and restraint rather than impulse shopping like those before him would have happily done. Which is why any and all talk of acquiring Peyton Manning makes zero sense. Let me start by saying, I am a huge Manning fan. I truly hope he comes back healthy and finds success wherever he’s able to continue his career.* *My dream scenario is for Peyton to sign with Baltimore. He could even ride into town in a Mayflower truck as a way to stick it to the Irsay family for showing him the door in Indianapolis while simultaneously winning over everyone in Charm City who is still bitter about the Colts leaving in the middle of the night. But I simply don’t see any set of circumstances which lead to Manning and the Redskins ending in anything other than disappointment. Maybe if the McNabb experiment never happened, I’d feel differently. But that train wreck is too fresh of a wound to simply pretend it never happened. Click here for the full article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Funny.. I posted my take on this via a poll almost simultaneously.... I have come to the opposite conclusion. Assuming both parties are willing to accept each other and work together, I'm all for it. The McNabb thing doesn't linger for me at all... Shabby blew it there for sure; got fleeced by Philly who clearly saw McNabb was out of shape, unmotivated, and deteriorating to the point he could no longer win games consistently even when healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtpop Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I disagree I wouldn't put Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb in the same category. I would take a Peyton at 80% over anything we have had recently. So you only have 2-3 year window with him, I remember what Shanahan did with John Elway late in his career over the same period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Funny.. I posted my take on this via a poll almost simultaneously.... I have come to the opposite conclusion. Assuming both parties are willing to accept each other and work together, I'm all for it. The McNabb thing doesn't linger for me at all... Shabby blew it there for sure; got fleeced by Philly who clearly saw McNabb was out of shape, unmotivated, and deteriorating to the point he could no longer win games consistently even when healthy. As one of the longtime members here, I definitely respect your take. I just think that a decade and a half of bad free agent signings shows that the Redskins need to stop trying to take shortcuts and quick fixes. The days of buying fading superstars should be a thing of the past and Shanahan should continue to build off of last offseason and focus on the draft to build this franchise back to respectability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm still torn really, but remain interested. I don't think he's foolish enough to risk becoming a paraplegic just to play football again. He got his ring and has nothing left to prove really IMO. I also don't believe he's solely looking for a huge paycheck. This may not workout ultimately, but it will be for entirely different reasons than McSlouch. DM was lazy and disinterested. Peyton obviously is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm still torn really, but remain interested. I don't think he's foolish enough to risk becoming a paraplegic just to play football again. He got his ring and has nothing left to prove really IMO. I also don't believe he's solely looking for a huge paycheck. This may not workout ultimately, but it will be for entirely different reasons than McSlouch. DM was lazy and disinterested. Peyton obviously is not. That's a key difference between a Manning signing and past sigining disasters. His motivation is his football legacy, not a payday. And his legendary work ethic isn't suddenly going to disappear once he goes to another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm fine with Manning if we still draft a QB, say Tannehill or Foles or even Kellen Moore. I think if anything was proven this year, its that the NFL is wide open. Yes we went 5-11, but we had a bunch of games that came down to a play or 2. With better QB play, who knows what happens. I would much prefer RG3 over Manning, but I don't think its the end of the world if Peyton comes here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 His motivation is his football legacy, not a payday. I agree 100 percent. Which is why he can't come to Washington. There simply aren't enough pieces in place for Manning to be able to say with a straight face that he came here for anything other than money. Let him go to a team that's actually close to competing for a title and let the Redskins continue to build for the future. ---------- Post added February-13th-2012 at 08:22 AM ---------- I think if anything was proven this year, its that the NFL is wide open. Yes we went 5-11, but we had a bunch of games that came down to a play or 2. With better QB play, who knows what happens. Unfortunately this is all 'Skins fans have had to cling on to for a decade or so -- with a little bit of luck maybe the Redskins could sneak into the playoffs. I'm tired of cheering for a team that's capable of making the playoffs once or twice a decade. I'm tired of rooting for a franchise that needs everything to fall into place just to have a winning season. I want the front office to build off of last offseason and continue to try and build actual depth rather than chasing stars and headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 *Look, I fully admit that every once in a while a free agent signing does work out, but guys like London Fletcher, Andre Carter or Marcus Washington are the exception to the rule. The franchise strikes out a helluva lot more often than they hit a home run when it comes to free agency. Actually, no, they don't. But they've had too long a list of high-profile FA busts that it can seem that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Manning cannot be our only option if he's brought in. First, we don't know if he can physically still play at the same level. Second, it requires either he learns a brand new system (which even for Manning is going to take time to get acquainted with, although the process is likely to be much faster than pretty much anyone else learning it) or it requires our offense to learn a new system. Either one fo those learning curves can be shortened with proper planning from our coaching staff, but there will still be that curve. The other piece of that equation is that if Manning is brought in, you've almost definitely made a commitment to the pocket passer type of quarterback. This is a point I haven't seen made, but it's my position that you need two quarterbacks who fit the same mold as your first and second quarterbacks, and perhaps you can get away with someone a bit different as your third. Why? Think about Tebow as a most recent example. The offense he runs is entirely different. Think about Grossman and Beck and how they ran different types of plays. You have to wonder if the shifts in play calling due to personnel (ie: quarterback) made a difference this year. It affects the other peripheral positions, and the offensive line, quite a bit. It's a fantasy land scenario that will never play out, but I don't think you get Griffin and Manning, even if you can. They're entirely different. Manning and Luck pair up much better with one another. I think the exception is if we get RG3 and can't find any suitable back ups (though, if we get RG3, I'd be tempted to see if we can get Russell Wilson or someone of a similar ilk late as a third string/project guy) or even in UDFA. Grossman MAY be able to fill that void, simply because he knows the system. That said, I want nothing to do with Grossman Manning as a signing isn't necessarily an issue, because it really is only a contract. No picks involved. The problem is the commitment to that type of quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Unfortunately this is all 'Skins fans have had to cling on to for a decade or so -- with a little bit of luck maybe the Redskins could sneak into the playoffs. I'm tired of cheering for a team that's capable of making the playoffs once or twice a decade. I'm tired of rooting for a franchise that needs everything to fall into place just to have a winning season. I want the front office to build off of last offseason and continue to try and build actual depth rather than chasing stars and headlines. Well that's why if we sign Manning, I still want them to draft a QB. Trade down and take Tannehill. I'd be completely fine if that were to happen. In fact, I think I'd favor that over RG3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I agree 100 percent. Which is why he can't come to Washington. There simply aren't enough pieces in place for Manning to be able to say with a straight face that he came here for anything other than money. Let him go to a team that's actually close to competing for a title and let the Redskins continue to build for the future. Perhaps he's looking for a BIG challenge to secure that legacy... But that raises a good point. Assume the Colts cut him loose, what team is most ready to hand Peyton the keys and say drive us to the Super Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Perhaps he's looking for a BIG challenge to secure that legacy... But that raises a good point. Assume the Colts cut him loose, what team is most ready to hand Peyton the keys and say drive us to the Super Bowl? Arizona could have an extremely potent offense with Manning at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rd421 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Well that's why if we sign Manning, I still want them to draft a QB. Trade down and take Tannehill. I'd be completely fine if that were to happen. In fact, I think I'd favor that over RG3. IF Tannehill is the guy they want I would say this is an almost ideal situation assuming Manning is healed. but then you miss out on first round playmaking talent at wr or other need positions. For a team who has been defunct of talent at the QB position for 2 decades I am Ok with investing a lot in the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 As one of the longtime members here, I definitely respect your take. I just think that a decade and a half of bad free agent signings shows that the Redskins need to stop trying to take shortcuts and quick fixes. The days of buying fading superstars should be a thing of the past and Shanahan should continue to build off of last offseason and focus on the draft to build this franchise back to respectability. I agree which is one reason I want to sign Manning. If you sign Peyton you keep all of your draft picks and might even be able to trade down for more. If you go for RG3, you drastically cut in to your supply of picks for the next couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 IF Tannehill is the guy they want I would say this is an almost ideal situation assuming Manning is healed. but then you miss out on first round playmaking talent at wr or other need positions. For a team who has been defunct of talent at the QB position for 2 decades I am Ok with investing a lot in the position. We could still address WR in FA or pick up one in a later round. I think QB is a bigger priority than WR. What good is it to have good WRs if no one can get the ball to them? Manning made Garcon, Collie, Stokely, etc. into household names. Hankerson, Moss, and Gaffney are decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Arizona could have an extremely potent offense with Manning at the helm. Yeah I thought about them. Christ, can you imagine Peyton getting into that same groove with Larry Fitz that he had for so long with Marvin Harrison? They would be unstoppable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible_Red40 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Shabby blew it there for sure;. Shabby? As in not too shabby? Or a bad nickname? Or typo. None the less, lol'd at that. On topic, I totally agree Murf. Great write up (as always). I mean I wouldn't be heart broken if he ended up here, but would much prefer to continue to go in the youth direction and kick ass that way. Please no more shortcuts. Also the word "groomed" is awful when discussing QB's. Since the Redskins last Super Bowl victory, name the QB's that were groomed to become a Franchise guy? Most would point to A.Rodgers. That too me is a luxury pick and is a 1st rounder. So that's a thin argument. K.Warner to me was not groomed either, more of a chance and let's get this offense going. Brady is just a once in a lifetime thing. Brees is more or less a 1st round pick being the 32nd overall pick, which would be a first rounder. Too me it's all about hitting that 1st round QB, we have to take a shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 They’d be back to cutting corners and trying for the quick fix instead of trying to draft and develop the quarterback of of the future. And if that happens, I don’t know how longer I’ll be able to subject myself to this maddening franchise. I understand wanting to draft a guy murf, but how is giving up at least 2 #1's not trying for the quick fix or the same old Redskins? Yes it would be for a young QB, but wouldn't trading those picks be just as bad as just signing Manning? At least Manning won't cost us picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I understand wanting to draft a guy murf, but how is giving up at least 2 #1's not trying for the quick fix or the same old Redskins? Yes it would be for a young QB, but wouldn't trading those picks be just as bad as just signing Manning? At least Manning won't cost us picks. Because it's simply not a quick fix. Given the fact that we haven't had a QB for decades, it's time we find one. I don't think we find ourselves in as good of a spot to find one any time soon, and if we do, Shanahan may not be around and we may be in for another rebuild type of project. RG3 and Luck both "fit" the system, even if it requires a few minor tweaks here and there. Manning doesn't fit the Shanahan system, although the theory that Kyle/Mike are totally inflexible isn't quite accurate, it is still their system. He's a statue. Now, that doesn't mean he doesn't avoid pressure, he does, but the basis of the Shanahan offense is the boot game, a moving pocket and athleticism. Manning can evade pressure extremely well, but he probably runs a 5.6 40 yard dash. There would need to be schematic changes to allow for his addition. RG3 fits nearly perfect. He has a pass first mentality as a quarterback, but when it comes down to it, he's not afraid to tuck and run. And his speed is a liability for defenses. He is the ideal quarterback for the high to low read Shanahan pass offense, as his deep balls is one of the most accurate in college football. Luck is a bit more athletic than Manning as well as far as speed and the ability to move the pocket. He'd fit the scheme pretty well. Either one of those two, in my opinion, is worth the trade up. Solid quarterback play could mask deficiencies. We can make a few FA moves on the OL and perhaps a receiver, perhaps see if we can find a younger ILB to groom in FA to replace London when he finally calls it a career (though at his pace, that might not happen for another decade ). Plan A needs to be finding a way to get Luck or Griffin. Unfortunately, the draft comes after free agency. We need to sign a veteran QB in FA, regardless... I just don't think Manning makes the most sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I understand wanting to draft a guy murf, but how is giving up at least 2 #1's not trying for the quick fix or the same old Redskins? Yes it would be for a young QB, but wouldn't trading those picks be just as bad as just signing Manning? At least Manning won't cost us picks. It would be much more in line with the moves the Giants made in 2004 and our big issue has been trading picks for vets. If FA goes as it should (with 40+million to spend) we have the "ammo" to move up and snag our QB. Shanny needs to be agressive on this. Signing Manning a) raises expectations to ridiculously high levels when we aren't ready to compete and invites a huge media circus here nationally which was nice to avoid. I like the boring Redskins until our play warrants it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Plan A needs to be finding a way to get Luck or Griffin. Unfortunately, the draft comes after free agency. We need to sign a veteran QB in FA, regardless... I just don't think Manning makes the most sense. Ideally, I'd like to get Luck or Griffin, but I'm not sure if that is going to happen. I think a Manning/Tannehill combo would work just fine. Plus, we could probably trade down and get an extra pick or so and still get Tannehill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 People don't seem to realize that a commitment to Manning is a commitment to that archtype of quarterback, in essence. The tweaks you make to the system could mean that your back ups need to be a similar type of quarterback to ensure that the other 10 men on the field don't have to change what they do to account for a quarterback change. That's what scares me about Manning. That and his health. Don't get me wrong, even if I don't think it's the best move, if Manning came here I'd be damned excited. I just don't think I'd make that move if I was the GM of the Washington Redskins. That said, I'm not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Because it's simply not a quick fix. Given the fact that we haven't had a QB for decades, it's time we find one. I don't think we find ourselves in as good of a spot to find one any time soon, and if we do, Shanahan may not be around and we may be in for another rebuild type of project. RG3 and Luck both "fit" the system, even if it requires a few minor tweaks here and there. Manning doesn't fit the Shanahan system, although the theory that Kyle/Mike are totally inflexible isn't quite accurate, it is still their system. He's a statue. Now, that doesn't mean he doesn't avoid pressure, he does, but the basis of the Shanahan offense is the boot game, a moving pocket and athleticism. Manning can evade pressure extremely well, but he probably runs a 5.6 40 yard dash. There would need to be schematic changes to allow for his addition. RG3 fits nearly perfect. He has a pass first mentality as a quarterback, but when it comes down to it, he's not afraid to tuck and run. And his speed is a liability for defenses. He is the ideal quarterback for the high to low read Shanahan pass offense, as his deep balls is one of the most accurate in college football. Luck is a bit more athletic than Manning as well as far as speed and the ability to move the pocket. He'd fit the scheme pretty well. Either one of those two, in my opinion, is worth the trade up. Solid quarterback play could mask deficiencies. We can make a few FA moves on the OL and perhaps a receiver, perhaps see if we can find a younger ILB to groom in FA to replace London when he finally calls it a career (though at his pace, that might not happen for another decade ). Plan A needs to be finding a way to get Luck or Griffin. Unfortunately, the draft comes after free agency. We need to sign a veteran QB in FA, regardless... I just don't think Manning makes the most sense. What he said. As usual KDawg and I are very much on the same page with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Bring him in to camp, have him play it out vs. RGIII or Tannehill. If he wins the job outright, we can keep him as a starter/mentor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.