Football Outsiders Picks Redskins to Make Postseason

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

One way to change our plight would be to actually change the way that we build teams. But unmentioned by the article: if the Redskins can win in consecutive years, that would shut up a lot of the same story lines we've had to read forever.

Talk about a backhanded compliment.
He thinks we'll make the playoffs but are doing everything wrong long term.

I don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive and i don't think our moves from one off-season have hindered us long-term it depends on what we do next year and the year after that.

Originally Posted by Mike Tanier

But the Redskins haven’t built a true contender. They’ve built another version of their 2005 team, which went 10-6 in Gibbs’ second season. Gibbs promoted 35-year-old Mark Brunell over former top pick Patrick Ramsey that year, and Brunell had a 23-touchdown season. Eager to take the next step, Snyder and Cerrato added Antwaan Randle El, T.J. Duckett, Brandon Lloyd, and Adam Archuleta to the roster, even though Gibbs and his staff had no use for any of them but Randle El. The other three ate up cap and roster space, the Redskins fell to 5-11, and Brunell’s injuries led to a premature start of the Campbell era.

First off he's combining 2 off-seasons into 1 in the above exerpt.
Second, McNabb is cleary better then Mark Brunell.
Thrid, we don't know what moves we'll make next year and therefore he shouldn't assume that they'll be uneccesary and over-priced (money+draft picks).
Also, the moves we've made this off-season have all been inexpensive and we don't know as yet how they'll pan out.

Originally Posted by Mike Tanier

This year’s Redskins have an alarming number of players who are about to simultaneously grow old, and that’s not even counting lunatic acquisitions like Galloway. McNabb, Portis, Johnson, Parker, Santana Moss, Rabach, Philip Daniels, and London Fletcher are all at or approaching the downside of their careers, with Andre Carter and Derrick Dockery not far behind them. There are few obvious successors to these key players on the roster, and with training camp bloated with Galloway and Holliday types, it will be hard for the team to find and develop quality replacements.

Shanahan and Allen did not create the current situation with the age of the players and the Redskins are not unlike other NFL teams that are or need to begin re-tooling.

There is no doubt the backfield will need a youth infusion soon because there is no youth other then Torrian and that's if he makes the team.

WR position depends on Devin and Malcolm.

The OL is gonna have to get younger but i think players like Trent Williams, Rinehart, Lichtensteiger and Edwin Williams are a start.

I think were pretty good on defense with good youth and some successors in place, although not big name guys.

OLB has youth in Orakpo and 2 replacements waiting in the wings in Chirs Wilson and Lorenzo Alexander.
ILB has Rocky and Blades, Riley and Henson being groomed.
The secondary has similiar youth and depth.
DL/DE-NT has Haynesworth, Golston and Carricker.

-------------------

There are two sad elements to the Redskins plight. The first is that some in the Redskins organization will feel vindicated when the team loses in the second round of the playoffs

Imo, whenever a team makes it to the playoffs they have a chance to win the whole thing, just look at the 2005 Steelers.
--------

The second is that so many of the Redskins problems are obvious and avoidable. Anyone who looks carefully at the roster can see long-term disaster brewing, and it doesn’t take much imagination to find healthier alternatives to the path the Redskins chose

In 1 off-season we've chosen a "path"?

The Redskins could have Jake Delhomme or Derek Anderson as their starting quarterback, with second-round pick Jimmy Clausen waiting in the wings. Or, they could have given Campbell another year, used their second-round pick on a defensive playmaker like Sergio Kindle, and let their defense win a few games while Shanahan made tough decisions on offense.

No he's doing if then scenarios?
Another way to view is that having McNabb gives us the opportunity to draft and groom a QB in the Kolb, Rodgers manner while still remaining competitive.

Heck, they could have
pulled the trigger on the McNabb deal but held off on all of the Parker-Johnson-Galloway nonsense, increasing their odds of finding a great young back or receiver who will improve as McNabb fades.

We need to fill out our roster and having Galloway and Parker is no worse if not flat out better then having Marcus Mason and Marko Mitchell.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Second, McNabb is cleary better then Mark Brunell.

McNabb wasn't better in Philly than Mark Brunell was in Jacksonville.

Donovan McNabb NFL & AFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Mark Brunell NFL & AFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

They're pretty similar players, overall. Mike Shanahan and Joe Gibbs both put stress on the quarterback getting the ball out of his hands as not to stall the offense, so we'll probably see an improvement in McNabb's sack rate similar to that seen in Brunell's Washington days and also Jake Plummer's Denver days.

While you can't say that McNabb is better than Brunell when they came over, he might very well turn out to be a better Redskins quarterback. Comparing the compensation packages for each, I'd expect Shanahan is getting a better project than Gibbs is. Or more accurately, he thinks he is.

Thrid, we don't know what moves we'll make next year and therefore he shouldn't assume that they'll be uneccesary and over-priced (money+draft picks).
Also, the moves we've made this off-season have all been inexpensive and we don't know as yet how they'll pan out.

We don't know anything about the moves that will be made for next year's team, only that they will be numerous, and the team is already short two draft picks, and is looking into some sort of Haynesworth-Jackson swap, possibly costing a third draft pick. A lot of it will depend on how the team does this year...the better they perform in 2010, the more likely they are to be veteran-laden in 2011.

I don't want to rule out some shrewd FA pickups, like they did in 2004 with Springs, Washington, and Griffin, but open player markets are getting more barren by the year, and the new CBA could restrict player movement even more.

We need to fill out our roster and having Galloway and Parker is no worse if not flat out better then having Marcus Mason and Marko Mitchell.

Mason is a replacement level player with no developmental upside, so he's probably not a good example for me, but Mitchell is an excellent example of the fact that there's absolutely no player development going on in Washington.

He may or may not have fit the scheme or had any sort of long term potential under Kyle Shanahan, but rather than fool around with a 25 year old longshot for a year and risk a sub-replacement performance, we cut him outright in June and look to be going with some sort of veteran in the fourth receiver role. It's only a few plays per game, so whatever, but the interest is clear: we have two third year players for youth who are already pretty developed (at least as close to their primes as we can reasonably expect), so there's no reason to have even more young depth at the position. We instead must "push" Thomas/Kelly to perform now. Now, now, now. We didn't replace Mitchell with a more scheme-friendly developmental prospect, rather, we just scrapped the idea of player development at the position.

Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen both fall heavily on the nature side of the nature/nurture NFL talent continuum. Both have failed mightily in the draft with "raw" prospects, and do much better when selecting older draft eligible types who can learn on the field. We certainly are going to press Forester's ability to turn some late round picks into serviceable starting lineman -- at least one should emerge on the 2011 OL. But at WR/RB/DL/LB/DB, there's no emphasis on development. Which means vets instead of unproven rookies over the next four years.

If they keep drafting superstars in the first round every year, they'll keep winning. Vinny left a pretty nifty present with Orakpo, and I like Trent Williams as a line anchor for at least the next three or four years, hopefully longer. If we hit on first rounders in 2011 and 2012, we'll have a nice amount of young talent regardless of the lean towards veteran productivity. One miss and that's when the "age will get us" predictions start to hit their mark.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Mason is a replacement level player with no developmental upside, so he's probably not a good example for me, but Mitchell is an excellent example of the fact that there's absolutely no player development going on in Washington.

Marko was cut by the Lions. He couldn't beat out Northcutt or Byrant Johnson over there. If he really had any upside, he would have shown it by now.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

McNabb wasn't better in Philly than Mark Brunell was in Jacksonville. They're pretty similar players, overall............While you can't say that McNabb is better than Brunell when they came over, he might very well turn out to be a better Redskins quarterback.

I think you can most certainly can say that McNabb is better then Brunell was in Jax we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll take McNabbs win percentage, production, division titles, playoffs appearances and pro-bowls anyday.

We don't know anything about the moves that will be made for next year's team, only that they will be numerous, and the team is already short two draft picks, and is looking into some sort of Haynesworth-Jackson swap, possibly costing a third draft pick. A lot of it will depend on how the team does this year...the better they perform in 2010, the more likely they are to be veteran-laden in 2011....I don't want to rule out some shrewd FA pickups, like they did in 2004 with Springs, Washington, and Griffin, but open player markets are getting more barren by the year, and the new CBA could restrict player movement even more.

I don't neccesarily disagree with what you're saying, but its still speculation at this point and Tainer goes on like it a proven fact.

Mason is a replacement level player with no developmental upside, so he's probably not a good example for me, but Mitchell is an excellent example of the fact that there's absolutely no player development going on in Washington.....we have two third year players for youth who are already pretty developed (at least as close to their primes as we can reasonably expect), so there's no reason to have even more young depth at the position. We instead must "push" Thomas/Kelly to perform now. Now, now, now. We didn't replace Mitchell with a more scheme-friendly developmental prospect, rather, we just scrapped the idea of player development at the position.

Mitchell although a fan favorite and pre-season stud was imo a replacement level player. And to say there's no player development isn't accurate because Armstrong seems to fit the mold PF/KR/WR and we're already developing or seeking the fruits of our own developmental WRs now.

It seems logical to me that our WR mix includes our unproven youth/developmental players + veterans as opposed to unproven youth backed up by developmental players.

Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen both fall heavily on the nature side of the nature/nurture NFL talent continuum. Both have failed mightily in the draft with "raw" prospects, and do much better when selecting older draft eligible types who can learn on the field.

Its debateable b/c Shanahan has success with both, bottom line for me is the guy can develop offensive talent young or veteran. (Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Tony Scheffler, Peyton Hillis, Ryan Clady...Terrel Davis, Shanon Sharpe, Rod Smith)

We certainly are going to press Forester's ability to turn some late round picks into serviceable starting lineman -- at least one should emerge on the 2011 OL.

On the OL Shanahan likes talented players be it from the draft or FA i'm sure if the talent pool is barren Forester will be given the personelle he needs. But, Shanahan has a history of raising the performance level of his players, which is a sign of a good coaching.

But at WR/RB/DL/LB/DB, there's no emphasis on development. Which means vets instead of unproven rookies over the next four years.

You gotta keep in mind we're talking about 1 off-season they Shanahan/Allen inherited the current state of affairs and you can only guess at what they'll do next year so you can't say there's no emphais on development.

Especially since some of the positions you mention have developmental players on the roster now.

WRs- we've already been through Devin/Malcolm are our developmental players then there's also Armstrong (if/when he makes the team).

RB- agreed as yet no developmental prospects; although the backs we have now are argueably better then the developmental prospects from last year

DL-In the 1st year of a new DL scheme its gonna be difficult to have developmental players but the DE position has a player in his prime Haynesworth and 2 relatively young/not old players in Carriker and Golston
NT-No decent developmental prospects

ILB-Blades, Riley and Henson

OLB-Chris Wilson, Alexander, Jarmon, Jackson, Gatewood

DB-Kareem Moore, Tryon, Barnes, Westbrook

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Mitchell although a fan favorite and pre-season stud was imo a replacement level player. And to say there's no player development isn't accurate because Armstrong seems to fit the mold PF/KR/WR and we're already developing or seeking the fruits of our own developmental WRs now.

It seems logical to me that our WR mix includes our unproven youth/developmental players + veterans as opposed to unproven youth backed up by developmental players.

I'm not going to argue against the fact that holding onto a Cerrato 7th round draft pick probably wasn't going to make people forget about Jerry Rice anytime soon. This team won't have much trouble replacing the four catches Mitchell had last season. Bobby Wade can do that. Likewise, if they lost the 50 catches that Kelly and Thomas combined for last year, well, there's a veteran out there who can go out and replace that production in 2010. Owens = Thomas + Kelly.

And while there's certainly a mix of young and old amongst the receivers, with and without Mitchell (my point wasn't that we're too old at the position overall), I'm under the impression that Anthony Armstrong isn't really going to be given a fair shot to make the team. He's here because he can work with the Brennan/Bartel third team in camp, and work with Terrence Austin to return kicks in the preseason. Perhaps he can beat out that seventh rounder, but I think that if there's even a smidge of doubt, the benefit goes to the draft pick.

You gotta keep in mind we're talking about 1 off-season they Shanahan/Allen inherited the current state of affairs and you can only guess at what they'll do next year so you can't say there's no emphais on development.

Especially since some of the positions you mention have developmental players on the roster now.

WRs- we've already been through Devin/Malcolm are our developmental players then there's also Armstrong (if/when he makes the team).

RB- agreed as yet no developmental prospects; although the backs we have now are argueably better then the developmental prospects from last year

DL-In the 1st year of a new DL scheme its gonna be difficult to have developmental players but the DE position has a player in his prime Haynesworth and 2 relatively young/not old players in Carriker and Golston
NT-No decent developmental prospects

ILB-Blades, Riley and Henson

OLB-Chris Wilson, Alexander, Jarmon, Jackson, Gatewood

DB-Kareem Moore, Tryon, Barnes, Westbrook

I really don't think it's outlandish to look at the moves made this offseason and point out that there hasn't been so much as a half hearted attempt to pick up some players who might be useful down the road based on raw physical tools. We opted for a small UDFA class because we brought in A LOT of players from around the league to win jobs in camp this year.

As pointed out by many beside myself, we're not tied at the hip to any of the veterans we signed this year. We can part with every last one of them at the end of the year if we so choose.

I do sense the team is trying to develop Kareem Moore this year...I'm skeptical as to how much he can actually learn beyond picking up a new defense between years two and three, but I think they're trying to get more out of him than Gray/Blache did.

We still have a lot of defensive depth from the Cerrato days, but while I'm hoping to see Perry Riley become the next Fletcher, and Rocky McIntosh to take to and thrive in this defense, and Carter to really excel in a 3-4 OLB role, I still think there's a lot of "starters" and "backups" in Haslett's defense (to say: they aren't really interchangeable). With select exceptions, Haslett will draft his own future starters over the next two years, and not try to turn backups into more than just role players.

However, even finding niches for backups would make them more useful than they have been in the past.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm not going to argue against the fact that holding onto a Cerrato 7th round draft pick probably wasn't going to make people forget about Jerry Rice anytime soon. This team won't have much trouble replacing the four catches Mitchell had last season. Bobby Wade can do that. Likewise, if they lost the 50 catches that Kelly and Thomas combined for last year, well, there's a veteran out there who can go out and replace that production in 2010. Owens = Thomas + Kelly.

And that's with a trio of 3 sub-par QBs throwing him the ball.
People can diss TO all they want but wouldn't mind seeing him on the roster.

I'm under the impression that Anthony Armstrong isn't really going to be given a fair shot to make the team. He's here because he can work with the Brennan/Bartel third team in camp, and work with Terrence Austin to return kicks in the preseason. Perhaps he can beat out that seventh rounder, but I think that if there's even a smidge of doubt, the benefit goes to the draft pick.

I would agree with if Shanahan wasn't the HC.
If there was ever a coach that will give an UDFA a fair shake its Shanahan.
If Armstrong comes to play he'll make the squad.

I really don't think it's outlandish to look at the moves made this offseason and point out that there hasn't been so much as a half hearted attempt to pick up some players who might be useful down the road based on raw physical tools. We opted for a small UDFA class because we brought in A LOT of players from around the league to win jobs in camp this year.

Maybe so, but i think we brought in a lot of UDFA because Shanahan has found talent their before and we disn't have a lot of draft picks to rebuild/retool.

As pointed out by many beside myself, we're not tied at the hip to any of the veterans we signed this year. We can part with every last one of them at the end of the year if we so choose.

Which makes sense to me because we should be replacing them via the draft with developmental players. Although i think Carriker/Kemo will stick.

I do sense the team is trying to develop Kareem Moore this year...I'm skeptical as to how much he can actually learn beyond picking up a new defense between years two and three, but I think they're trying to get more out of him than Gray/Blache did.

Blache always claimed to try to get Kareem on the field more often.
I think Moore is a developmental player that at a minimum can match the level of play that Doughty/Horton bring to the table.

I still think there's a lot of "starters" and "backups" in Haslett's defense (to say: they aren't really interchangeable). With select exceptions, Haslett will draft his own future starters over the next two years, and not try to turn backups into more than just role players.

I think Chris Wilson and Blades are starting level players given the opportunity. The DEs behind Haynesworth i view as starting caliber players: Carriker, Holiday, Daniels and Golston.

Haslett also seems high on Alexander and i don't think its just coachspeak.

If we focus on DL, NT in particular in the upcoming draft i think our defense can be steady for several years.