How big a factor in the 2 decades plus malaise do you attribute to bad drafting in the mid/late 80s?

[justice98]

Starting with the 84 draft, it's plain to see why they couldn't keep it going after the 91 Super Bowl. No influx of young talent whatsoever in the years in between that could sustain it.

 

Between 84-98, they sucked at the draft. Not breaking news, I know, but I dont think people appreciate how far back it goes.  It's bust after bust, middling player after middling player going back to the days when championship parades were a thing.  85 and 86 had some picks that would contribute to the SBs in 87 and 91, but anybody remember their first pick in 86, Markus Koch?  We were lucky they had 12 rounds back in the day, or we really woulda been screwed.

 

Then there were no #1 picks for 6 straight years.  Think about the mayhem if Bruce tried to do that now.

 

So the Vinny years get a lot of attention, but it goes back to the Beatherd, I hate to say.  They've never recovered.  And Charley Casserly was stone cold awful at drafting.  The Casserly/Vinny tenures are pretty equally terrible in that regard. 

 

Beatherd is quoted as saying 

Quote

"If there were a lot of good players in the draft, we felt we could afford to trade down a little and take a lower pick in the second round, or give up a first rounder to get more picks," Beathard said.  "There were some years when we'd do it, and things didn't fall the way we anticipated, and it didn't work out.  It was a calculated risk, and for the most part, it worked."

 

Did it really work though?  The only thing that saves the argument is the players that were available at the #1 spots they gave up weren't all that impressive.  Seems like a push to me.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

From 1985-1998, if you just look at the first 3 rounds of each draft, we were horrible lol....I don't even remember the Skins trading their top pick in the 1985 draft to the 49ers before the season even started.

 

"All the Redskins got in return for Nixon was the 49ers' sixth-round choice in 1986 and a black eye for the scouting department....

 

Beathard, the Redskins' general manager, is as blunt as can be about the selection of Nixon. "You'd have to say we made a mistake," he said.

 

Defensive coach Richie Petitbon, who also scouted Nixon, said, "We knew he wasn't a speed-burner, but we thought he had more makeup speed than he showed here. He didn't show a whole lot of toughness whereby we could have played him on special teams.

 

"He wasn't very strong. He got pushed around a lot. If he makes it in this league, I'd say he'll make it as a safety, not a corner. It remains to be seen if he's physically strong enough.

 

"I would just say he's one we missed on."

 

 

Damn.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

And they did it again! lol ....the very next season:

 

 

"The Washington Redskins ended their often acrimonious six-month association with wide receiver Walter Murray yesterday by trading him to Indianapolis for the Colts' second-round draft choice in 1987, the Redskins announced.

 

The Redskins gave up their No. 1 pick in 1987 and their 10th-round choice in 1986 to the San Francisco 49ers to obtain Murray with the 49ers' second-round selection (45th overall) in last April's NFL draft.

 

But the Redskins and Murray, who played at the University of Hawaii, became embroiled in a bitter contract dispute that was left unresolved, forcing him to miss the team's training camp, as well as the beginning of the season."

 

 

Su'a cravens ain't lookin' so bad right now lol....

[Darth Tater]

The highest pick in the linebacker core of one of the best defense in the '80s was  a 7th rounder.

 

Truth is, our malaise had little to do with bad drafting in the late 80s.  In 1991, we drafted a guy who was supposed to be the best DT in the draft. From what I remember, he was not as good as advertised (though still a decent DT) and his career was cut short by injuries. That was also the year we drafted Keenan McCardell who might have been an OK replacement for an aging Art Monk, who already was not a real number 1, but Joe Gibbs decided we needed to go a different direction. In 1992, we did draft 3 OL but only 1 actually made an NFL team, all were pretty much busts. There was also some bad luck, the first time we got to tap an A QB, our choices were between Schuler and Dilfer and later the NFL made us wait so we couldn't even try to retain Trent Green. We did get Tre Johnson who might have been the best guard of the class if he didn't have injury issues. Raymer was pretty good until his injury. How about Andre the Missing? I do sometimes wonder what would have happened if Joe Gibbs had come back in 1999 instead of 2004. A much bigger factor since 1993 has been that our front office has just been mediocre at best.  We picked a couple of coaches in Petitbon and Turner who seemed to have shown the truth of the Peter Principle (you rise to your level of incompetence), our great owner was more interested in his legacy (and it was not the new stadium) than the health of the team, did not know how to handle this thing called free agency and then we got SnyderAtto who promptly blew the boon New Orleans handed us. Drafting is pretty much something we've never done well since I've been a fan.  We did have an amazing 1979 and 1981.  1980 and 1983 were also good but not like 1979 and 1981.

[justice98]

I guess I feel a little better they didnt use a #1 pick on a QB those 6 years they didnt have one knowing the only remotely competent QBs not picked at the top of the first round turned out to be Chris Chandler and Neil O'Donnell. 

 

Side note on that last point, the mid/late 80s all the way to the late 90s was a definite dry spell for QBs, when Manning, Brady, Hasselbeck, Brunell, McNabb, etc came into the league.  

 

The fact they got a couple good years out of Rypien is a credit to them.  Cuz nobody else was getting anything from anybody.

[justice98]

47 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

The highest pick in the linebacker core of one of the best defense in the '80s was  a 7th rounder.

 

Truth is, our malaise had little to do with bad drafting in the late 80s.  In 1991, we drafted a guy who was supposed to be the best DT in the draft. From what I remember, he was not as good as advertised (though still a decent DT) and his career was cut short by injuries. That was also the year we drafted Keenan McCardell who might have been an OK replacement for an aging Art Monk, who already was not a real number 1, but Joe Gibbs decided we needed to go a different direction. In 1992, we did draft 3 OL but only 1 actually made an NFL team, all were pretty much busts. There was also some bad luck, the first time we got to tap an A QB, our choices were between Schuler and Dilfer and later the NFL made us wait so we couldn't even try to retain Trent Green. We did get Tre Johnson who might have been the best guard of the class if he didn't have injury issues. Raymer was pretty good until his injury. How about Andre the Missing? I do sometimes wonder what would have happened if Joe Gibbs had come back in 1999 instead of 2004. A much bigger factor since 1993 has been that our front office has just been mediocre at best.  We picked a couple of coaches in Petitbon and Turner who seemed to have shown the truth of the Peter Principle (you rise to your level of incompetence), our great owner was more interested in his legacy (and it was not the new stadium) than the health of the team, did not know how to handle this thing called free agency and then we got SnyderAtto who promptly blew the boon New Orleans handed us. Drafting is pretty much something we've never done well since I've been a fan.  We did have an amazing 1979 and 1981.  1980 and 1983 were also good but not like 1979 and 1981.

 

That basically makes my point. They havent been good at it long before most people say we havent been good at it. After those players from the late 70s/early 80s, they basically got nothing out of the draft and it caught up to them by the end of the decade.  They salvaged something from free agency amd trades for a couple years, then it all collapsed to where it never recovered.  Primarily because they couldnt draft to save their lives coming out of the 80s.  Yes, they are some questionable hires, but the groundwork was laid by the fact the cupboard was bare for so many years where the draft was everything, and before they started hiring bad people.

[hail2skins]

The topic is definitely a good discussion for historical purposes and highlights that our drafts weren't that great even from the mid-80s on. However, the notion that we are somehow "still recovering" strikes me as the same argument folks use when they try to excuse Snyder's ownership with the "well, the Skins sucked for the six seasons before he took over."  Sorry, he's owned the team for 19 seasons, and a big reason behind that lack of that success has been incompetence in the front office. 

[justice98]

7 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

The topic is definitely a good discussion for historical purposes and highlights that our drafts weren't that great even from the mid-80s on. However, the notion that we are somehow "still recovering" strikes me as the same argument folks use when they try to excuse Snyder's ownership with the "well, the Skins sucked for the six seasons before he took over."  Sorry, he's owned the team for 19 seasons, and a big reason behind that lack of that success has been incompetence in the front office. 

 

That is a valid point, you're absolutely right about that. Poor choice of phrasing on my part.  There absolutely has been enough time for Snyder to right the ship.  I'm just trying to get to the genesis of it all.  Snyder certainly has perpetuated ineptitude all on his own.

[Darth Tater]

38 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

That basically makes my point. They havent been good at it long before most people say we havent been good at it. After those players from the late 70s/early 80s, they basically got nothing out of the draft and it caught up to them by the end of the decade.  They salvaged something from free agency amd trades for a couple years, then it all collapsed to where it never recovered.  Primarily because they couldnt draft to save their lives coming out of the 80s.  Yes, they are some questionable hires, but the groundwork was laid by the fact the cupboard was bare for so many years where the draft was everything, and before they started hiring bad people.

No, it makes the point that our draft fails have very little to do with any issues.  From 1969 to 1992, we had a total of three losing seasons, only 1 which saw 10+ losses, only two more non winning ones and were either in the playoffs or in sniffing distance every other year.  We went to 4 SBs in that period, twice beating a division opponents in the NFCC game.  In 1983, we went 14-2 but did not clinch the division until our last game! We did not do this because we were good drafters.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

The topic is definitely a good discussion for historical purposes and highlights that our drafts weren't that great even from the mid-80s on. However, the notion that we are somehow "still recovering" strikes me as the same argument folks use when they try to excuse Snyder's ownership with the "well, the Skins sucked for the six seasons before he took over."  Sorry, he's owned the team for 19 seasons, and a big reason behind that lack of that success has been incompetence in the front office. 

 

I see it more as a philosophical exercise...You wonder if Gibbs would have retired whem he did is the team had a young, talented core to work with after the 1991 Super Bowl instead of a lot of aging vets and the full-blown start of free agency just around the corner. Between 1985-1987, we should have had 6 players from the 1st and 2nd rounds turning into quality starters and developing contributors by 1991.

 

You know what we got out of those six draft picks in the first two rounds of those drafts instead?...5 players, 3 of which never played a down for the Redskins. The other two? One was off the team in 4 years. That means, when the 1991 SB team rolled around, only one of the possibly six players from the top two rounds of those drafts--all of which should have been entering their primes--was even still with the team. One player. We just threw away the Skins' future by trading 1st round picks and throwing away 2nd round picks on guys we'd either cut or trade before they played a single down for the team. Instead of Nixon, we could have picked Kevin Greene....Imagine him on Pettibone's defense and in the 1987 and 1991 Super Bowls lol...

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

6 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

No, it makes the point that our draft fails have very little to do with any issues.  From 1969 to 1992, we had a total of three losing seasons, only 1 which saw 10+ losses, only two more non winning ones and were either in the playoffs or in sniffing distance every other year.  We went to 4 SBs in that period, twice beating a division opponents in the NFCC game.  In 1983, we went 14-2 but did not clinch the division until our last game! We did not do this because we were good drafters.

 

Once free agency rolled around, you couldn't achieve any type of sustained success the way the Redskins had been running things, trading away high draft picks and squandering a ****load of 2nd round picks. We were way behind the ball in that regard...probably why Jack Kent Cooke got pissed at Gibbs before the 1991 season and claimed the Cowboys built their team the "right way". Unfortunately, it looks like he was right.

 

We gave Pettibone and Turner an absolute **** roster that needed to be rebuilt by a mediocre Casserly, Doomed to fail. It got turned over to a new owner who had no real clue how to fix things and right the ship but convinced himself he did know because the team won the division in his first year of ownership. Doomed to fail some more lol...

[justice98]

Side note:  They essentially went 10 consecutive years without a viable first or second round non-specialist player from 84 to 94, until they got Tre Johnson.  Think about that for a second.  Chip Lohmiller was in there as a 2nd in 88. Even then, it was another 5 years until Champ and Jansen in 99.

 

I'm all for finding value in lower rounds, but if you cant get anybody that's any good in the first couple of rounds over that kind of sustained period, that's a recipe for disaster.

[SkinsGuy]

3 hours ago, justice98 said:

Did it really work though?  The only thing that saves the argument is the players that were available at the #1 spots they gave up weren't all that impressive.  Seems like a push to me.  

 

Hardly a push. 

 

The Redskins weren't set-up for future success into the 90s with the way Beathard and Gibbs did business, that might be true.

 

But the trade off?

 

FOUR Super Bowl appearances with THREE championships and FIVE NFC Championships appearances. All in just a ten year span. 

 

I'll take it.   

[dyst]

God if its not Snyder but moreso just the team itself, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.

[justice98]

5 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Hardly a push. 

 

The Redskins weren't set-up for future success into the 90s with the way Beathard and Gibbs did business, that might be true.

 

But the trade off?

 

FOUR Super Bowl appearances with THREE championships and FIVE NFC Championships appearances. All in just a ten year span. 

 

I'll take it.   

 

Except I dont think it was necessarily a trade off. The two things werent an either/or or conflicting ideas. They didnt gain all that winning by botching the draft.  lol

 

As was mentioned earlier, the core of those teams were drafted in the late 70s/early 80s when they did really well in the draft.  Green, Mann, Monk, Clark, Coleman, May, Milot, Grimm, Grant, Manley, and so on.  So we coulda had MORE winning if we did it right later on.  And we didnt even have to nail it like they did then, just had to be better than we were.

[zoony]

Im always amazed whenever i go back and look at drafts... there are so many years when there is just nobody there.  Ive played the game a few times looking at past drafts and thinking "who would i grab here knowing what i know now".. its interesting how so often the answer seems to be nobody, really

 

It feels like a lot of the leagues fortunes were determined by a handful of players... Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisburger, Ray Lewis...

[SWFLSkins]

9 hours ago, zoony said:

Im always amazed whenever i go back and look at drafts... there are so many years when there is just nobody there.  Ive played the game a few times looking at past drafts and thinking "who would i grab here knowing what i know now".. its interesting how so often the answer seems to be nobody, really

 

It feels like a lot of the leagues fortunes were determined by a handful of players... Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisburger, Ray Lewis...

 

You can certainly look at the Cowboys and state emphatically that Jones blew it when he fired Jimmy Johnson. Thankfully his ego got the better of him and he did so. Jimmy knew the college game and what transferred to the pro game....Their personnel and scheme fell apart after Jimmy even with the Triplets intact plus the linemen He had put together. You could of course during this time period look at Pittsburgh and SF as well. 

[Riggo-toni]

Beathard typically traded the following year's first rounder for a second rounder in the current year. He only kept 3 first rounders during his tenure - one became a Hog and the other two are in the HoF.

Casserly whiffed on every single first rounder during his tenure until landing Champ Bailey in 99, and he ended up giving away most of the picks from the Ricky Williams trade in order to move back up to get him.

Norvo the Clown cut Keenan McCardell, Rich Gannon, and Frank Wychek when he got here - all became pro-bowlers....but we needed to make room for Heath Shuler and Alvin Harper.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

Beathard typically traded the following year's first rounder for a second rounder in the current year. He only kept 3 first rounders during his tenure - one became a Hog and the other two are in the HoF.

 

 

 

In that case he should have kept all of them lol...

[SkinsGuy]

16 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

Except I dont think it was necessarily a trade off. The two things werent an either/or or conflicting ideas. They didnt gain all that winning by botching the draft.  lol

 

As was mentioned earlier, the core of those teams were drafted in the late 70s/early 80s when they did really well in the draft.  Green, Mann, Monk, Clark, Coleman, May, Milot, Grimm, Grant, Manley, and so on.  So we coulda had MORE winning if we did it right later on.  And we didnt even have to nail it like they did then, just had to be better than we were.

 

All that means even a wonderful, Hall-of-Fame GM like Beathard isn't perfect and can miss on drafts.

 

I've written many times on this board that even the best drafting teams in the current NFL only have 33% to 35% success rate in drafting. There's a lot of study and stats that go into it, but in the end, it's a lot of risk and no guarantees.

 

It's why I go into watching the draft now with NO expectations. There are hundreds of players available, and the odds of the Redskins picking who I want them to pick is very slim. I could have a list of 25 players that I want for a particular slot, let's say in the 2nd or 4th round, and odds are they won't pick any of those players. There are just too many choices.

 

Hopefully, the Redskins choose wisely this year.

 

 

[zoony]

3 hours ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

All that means even a wonderful, Hall-of-Fame GM like Beathard isn't perfect and can miss on drafts.

 

I've written many times on this board that even the best drafting teams in the current NFL only have 33% to 35% success rate in drafting. There's a lot of study and stats that go into it, but in the end, it's a lot of risk and no guarantees.

 

It's why I go into watching the draft now with NO expectations. There are hundreds of players available, and the odds of the Redskins picking who I want them to pick is very slim. I could have a list of 25 players that I want for a particular slot, let's say in the 2nd or 4th round, and odds are they won't pick any of those players. There are just too many choices.

 

Hopefully, the Redskins choose wisely this year.

 

 

 

What teams need out of the draft is 2 solid starters every year.  That is good drafting, IMO.  The redskins have actually had some decent drafts since 2012, but going 2 years without a first round pick is brutal.  First round is key, it is everything in the draft.  Hopefully the days of trading it away are behind us.

 

Ultimately, imo, the best draft strategies are from teams who stockpile picks.  Mclovin tried that when he was here.  It ultimately becomes a numbers game, which is why i am such a fan of what cleveland has done

[Renegade7]

On 4/12/2018 at 7:15 PM, dyst said:

God if its not Snyder but moreso just the team itself, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.

I keep seeing that we weren't really competitive in the 90s between 91 and 99.  This thread helps put in perspective that 1) we had issues before Snyder showed up (which I knew), and 2) we had issues before we got to the 90s which made the 90s worse then they should've been (which I didn't know, but completely understand).  My dad said we traded draft picks left and right under Gibbs I, I just figured because we were winning that it wasn't that bad.  Wrong.

[Tsailand]

The value of a draft pick basically only lasts four years (five years for first round picks, because of the 5th year option).  You can keep the player longer, but you will be paying market value, same as if you'd signed them as free agents.

 

The exception to this is with franchise QBs.  They are essential to winning in today's NFL, and there are not enough to go around.  The team that drafts them has a head start of at least a year in negotiating them, and so they always (besides with Kirk) manage to retain that QB for as long as they are productive.  In that sense, missing on a franchise QB pick can harm a team for a decade or more.

 

For example, look at the 24th and 25th picks of the 2005 NFL draft, both QBs.  Then look at the QB history of those two teams from 2005-2018

[Veryoldschool]

Dan Snyder is a highly competent marketeer but incompetent running the the team.  He makes stupid hires, trades and picks the Cousins screwup being the latest and biggest.  The failures start and end with Snyder.

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 4/13/2018 at 3:23 PM, zoony said:

Ultimately, imo, the best draft strategies are from teams who stockpile picks.  Mclovin tried that when he was here.  It ultimately becomes a numbers game, which is why i am such a fan of what cleveland has done

There are, in my opinion, 3 things that teams that draft well do:

 

1. They hit on their early picks, which become impact players, and who are retained in the organization for long periods of time.  

2. They are able to replace special teams and depth with the draft (basically JAGs who are on the team), allowing them to let mid to late round talent leave because the replacements are already on the roster. This saves you money not having to pay FAs for depth positions 

3. They find capable starting/reserve depth in the middle rounds consistently, so you don't have to pay a mid-tier guy a lot of money to stay, or pay more for a mid-tier FA.

 

They then supplement the players they draft with FA, picking up an impact player here and there, and filling out depth where necessary. NO TEAM is able to just build and exist through the draft.  The Patriots draft pretty well, but they are always bringing in FAs at different spots to fill out the roster. GB hasn't won nearly enough in either the Aaron Rodgers or Brett Favre era (1 SB each).  With that level of QB play, they should have won more.  Why?  Well, the team hasn't invested in FA almost at all. And while they draft well, they often fall JUST short.  

 

This is true, and  "McLovin's" 2015 draft is pretty good, 2016 doesn't look exactly stellar:

 

2015: 

1. Scherff - Good, but the 5th overall pick for a guard when Leonard Williams was sitting there is .. not the right draft pick even though Scherff is awesome.

2. Preston Smith - Starter who is good but, so far, not great.

3. Matt Jones - Waste of a pick

4. Crowder - Best pick of the draft, got a legitimate starter in the middle of the draft. 

4. Ari - Well, he was cut before his 3rd season, but brought back due to injury.

5. Spaight -  Good backup

6. Jarrett - Looked like a gem of a pick until a really ugly injury.

6. Spencer - out of the league

7. Reiter - Not signed, I don't think.

 

Ultimately, 9 picks, 3 starters, 1 backup (Spaight), 1 guy who worked his way back (Ari), and one guy who was looking great but bad-luck injury (Jarrett)

 

2016:

1. Doctson - so far, meh.  We'll see

2. Cravens - yeah, bust of a pick there

3. Fuller - great pick, sad to have traded him away

5. Ioannidis - Starter

6. Sudfeld - has a SB ring, just not with us.

7. Daniels and Marshal didn't make the squad.

 

This draft is ultimately going to be judged on how Doctson develops.   6 picks (I can't remember what happened to the 4th), the 1st and 2nd so far are underwhelming, but found a stud in Fuller (pity he's no longer here), and Ioanndis is coming around.

 

I think McCloughan did reasonably well in the mid-parts of the drafts.  But both his 1st round picks have issues (again, I love Scherff, but #5 overall with a stud DL on the board for a guard is the wrong pick), he had a couple early busts (Cravens and Matt Jones).  

 

The "good news" is that we were able to allow Murphy, Bree, Long and Grant to leave because, for the most part, we have suitable players to replace them. All are "mid-tier" type guys, and it's good that we didn't have to spend big money on retaining them out of necessity.  The one exception might be Bree, with the loss of Fuller as well...  That might hurt a bit.

 

The biggest issue the 'Skins have right now on the roster is they don't have a lot of IMPACT players.  Trent is great, but a LT can only do so much.

 

We don't have that stud DL who can take over a game, or the speed pass-rusher, or the WR/RB who can keep the opposing team's DC up for a week trying to figure out how to contain them.  We have none of those players.

 

We have a wonderfully average, 8-8 roster.  A top-tier coach (GIbbs I, for instance) might be able to coax 10-11 wins out of the team.

 

UNLESS Docston breaks-out, they draft the next Adrienne Peterson in the draft, CT and Reed stay healthy, Ryan Anderson has a huge leap, and Robinson is exactly what they hope he is going to be.  IF all of that happens, this roster could be really good.

 

What's just as likely is Williams, Moses, Reed, CT and Allen all will not perform to standard, at least early, as they are all recovering from surgeries.  And some will get hurt again, because that's kinda what they do.  Doctson will take a step forward, but not develop into a 1.  We will get a "meh" RB in the 4th round, the DBs will be "Meh" with the loss of Bree and Fuller, and we end up 5-11.  Not so good.