Redskins drafts-A historical problem

[Paintrain]

I missed this last week and just saw it today but this is an interesting excerpt from an ESPN Insider article about greatest drafts per team (1981 for us).

I won't publish the link or the whole story because it's a pay service but basically we've had a long history of drafting poorly. How long? Try 40+ years of being one of the worst organizations in drafting Pro Bowl or All Pro players. Here it is:

Originally Posted by ESPN Stats and Information

The Washington Redskins have appeared in five Super Bowls and won three. But according to ESPN Stats and Information's rankings, they are not a solid drafting team. The Redskins' draft picks have only 69 Pro Bowl selections and just 14 first-team All-Pro selections. Among teams that have drafted every year since 1967, the Redskins are the worst in those two categories.

[The Goat]

Hmmm...I guess Vinny could be an improvement over historical performance then.

[GMScud]

Well, I guess we really shouldn't be up in arms about the FO then, huh? It's pretty much status quo.

[Lotus]

Worst since '67...how awful for us.

The Skins historically have had the fewest picks during this period, I believe, because we trade them away constantly. The trend towards trading picks away began with George Allen, continues with Snyderrato, and was up-and-down in between.

Given that the draft is a crap shoot, the team with the fewest picks is also bound to strike gold the least.

[AnimateYYZ]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Worst since '67...how awful for us.

The Skins historically have had the fewest picks during this period, I believe, because we trade them away constantly. The trend towards trading picks away began with George Allen, continues with Snyderrato, and was up-and-down in between.

Given that the draft is a crap shoot, the team with the fewest picks is also bound to strike gold the least.

It is an awful statistic, but screw the pro bowl. You can't argue that this philosophy is a failure. There are several championships in Washington (granted none as of recent), but it's a lot more than other teams can say- as evidenced by your own avatar.

[Stuck in TX]

at least we have nowhere to go from here but up... unless we have not met our bottom yet. wow, the economy really has me down and it is affecting my football. I need some games! come on preseason!

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by AnimateYYZ

It is an awful statistic, but screw the pro bowl. You can't argue that this philosophy is a failure. There are several championships in Washington (granted none as of recent), but it's a lot more than other teams can say- as evidenced by your own avatar.

Yeah, it's not a statement about how we drafted, just a statement about how we've had few pro bowlers from the draft. Joe Gibbs could reel off a no. of players that the Skins drafted that played for them their entire careers & won a lot of games, including super bowls.

Not to knock the thread though, it sounds like it could be an interesting analysis as long as they look at all variables. Tenure w/the team would be the most important to me.

[Stuck in TX]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Tenure w/the team would be the most important to me.

I agree 100%. Another sickening stat is how many players get invited to the Pro Bowl who do not belong there. Does anyone remember who replaced Sean Taylor in the Pro Bowl after he was murdered? It was a guy who has not had a decent season since the horsecollar was made illegal. *cough*Roy Williams*cough*.... We had several players last year who the Skins drafted who could have been considered and the same could be said for the past few seasons. Tenure with the team is worth more ten-fold than who can win a pointless popularity contest.

[warriorzpath]

Pro Bowls vs. SuperBowls = Hyped Individual Accomplishments vs. Real Team Accomplishments

There's something to be said to be respected enough by your peers and fans to get into the Pro Bowl, but it's another to measure the success of your team by it.

[warriorzpath]

It's almost like measuring a player's worth by what round he was drafted in. In this case, Tom Brady would not be worth much.

[ethat001]

Interesting article and I wish we drafted better. Nevertheless, you can get good players both from the draft AND free agency. And although we've overpaid and overspent this offseason, I think Snyder's attitude has still changed from the days of Bruce Smith and Deon Sanders. Seems like when we overpay for free agents, they are much younger. I don't mind at all if we sign someone that is good and 25 years old.

After all, we've seen how difficult it is to eval draft picks - even early first rounders are often either busts, get hurt or get into off-field issues. Getting young and PROVEN free agents is probably better value than draft picks. How many first rounders would we have to have to find a Haynesworth? For example, BJ Raji may be good, but will he develop into an AH? Not likely. Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, Mike Williams, etc etc. show us how wrong teams usually are.

Obviously, the problem is finding cap room with this strategy, but we've somehow figured out how to do it. And if there's a no-cap year, doesn't that allow us to pay all the prorated guaranteed bonuses up front and free up a ton of cap space for years to come?

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, I guess we really shouldn't be up in arms about the FO then, huh? It's pretty much status quo.

Well, it's not entirely "status quo." The Redskins' draft that the article highlights preceded a decade a winning teams. And while that particular draft (May, Grimm, Manley, Grant, Brown and Didier) was not solely responsible for the success, it went a long way toward helping. So, there is SOME evidence of the organization's use of the draft to build a foundation.