Smoot Lays the Smack Down (Redskins vs. Dolphins)

[GTripp0012]

It's Monday, and I'm looking to stir the pot a little bit. Does anyone want to present the argument for, "the Skins are moving in the right direction?" What is this being based on?

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's Monday, and I'm looking to stir the pot a little bit. Does anyone want to present the argument for, "the Skins are moving in the right direction?" What is this being based on?

I would argue that we are moving in the right direction based on the recent emphasis on building the team through the draft, with a few conservative free agent signings to complement the process. That said, Shanny made a terrible miscalculation that the offense could get by with the limitations of the QBs on the roster and so little quality depth on the O-line. Without a consistent rushing game, these QBs cannot succeed. Put Grossman behind SF's O-line with their strong run game and numerous playmakers on offense, and he's probably very competent.

I've been shouting for years that offensive balance and success starts with the O-line. Until that is addressed, Shanny could put Sam Bradford or Andrew Luck behind this group, and they might look like Vinny Testaverde, circa 1988 in Tampa (when he threw an unthinkable 35 INTs!!!).

In conclusion, I want the top 3 picks in the next draft to be a QB and two O-linemen. There is a time to draft for need, and we have reached that point with Shanny's anemic offense. I can only hope that he agrees.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

I would argue that we are moving in the right direction based on the recent emphasis on building the team through the draft, with a few conservative free agent signings to complement the process. That said, Shanny made a terrible miscalculation that the offense could get by with the limitations of the QBs on the roster and so little quality depth on the O-line. Without a consistent rushing game, these QBs cannot succeed. Put Grossman behind SF's O-line with their strong run game and numerous playmakers on offense, and he's probably very competent.

I've been shouting for years that offensive balance and success starts with the O-line. Until that is addressed, Shanny could put Sam Bradford or Andrew Luck behind this group, and they might look like Vinny Testaverde, circa 1988 in Tampa (when he threw an unthinkable 35 INTs!!!).

In conclusion, I want the top 3 picks in the next draft to be a QB and two O-linemen. There is a time to draft for need, and we have reached that point with Shanny's anemic offense. I can only hope that he agrees.

Do you think there is a trend towards moving in the direction away from big name free agents and towards draft selections? If you think there is progress in this direction, what do you make of the 2010 offseason w/McNabb, the coaching hires, the Haynesworth saga, the way Hall/Rogers/Landry were managed, the defensive moves?

I think I can tell which way you are leaning with your last paragraph, but do tell me, how much confidence do you have that come May 2012, this is actually the path we are on?

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Do you think there is a trend towards moving in the direction away from big name free agents and towards draft selections? If you think there is progress in this direction, what do you make of the 2010 offseason w/McNabb, the coaching hires, the Haynesworth saga, the way Hall/Rogers/Landry were managed, the defensive moves?

I think I can tell which way you are leaning with your last paragraph, but do tell me, how much confidence do you have that come May 2012, this is actually the path we are on?

Yes, I believe that starting in 2011, more emphasis is being placed on the draft. In 2010, we had fewer choices, which limited how much could be accomplished after trading the 2nd round pick for McNabb. As for the Haynesworth mess, Snyder and Cerrato tried to get cute with the cap by pushing Al's huge $20M bonus to the uncapped 2010 year. I sense that Shanny tried to make it work by communicating with Haynesworth before that bonus was paid. In hindsight, Shanny probably should have cut Al sooner when it was apparent that he wasn't getting with the program. Regarding the DBs, Snyder and Cerrato tied Shanny's hands by giving Hall a big contract after less than half a season here. Rogers is clearly the better cover corner, and is finally holding onto the ball in SF, the change of scenery has been good for him. Landry should be re-signed, but not for Ed Reed money. We have decent tools defensively, but the offense is bereft, starting with the O-line and QB. It's time to stop neglecting those positions, and I believe they will be addressed early in the draft.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Yes, I believe that starting in 2011, more emphasis is being placed on the draft. In 2010, we had fewer choices, which limited how much could be accomplished after trading the 2nd round pick for McNabb. As for the Haynesworth mess, Snyder and Cerrato tried to get cute with the cap by pushing Al's huge $20M bonus to the uncapped 2010 year. I sense that Shanny tried to make it work by communicating with Haynesworth before that bonus was paid. In hindsight, Shanny probably should have cut Al sooner when it was apparent that he wasn't getting with the program. Regarding the DBs, Snyder and Cerrato tied Shanny's hands by giving Hall a big contract after less than half a season here. Rogers is clearly the better cover corner, and is finally holding onto the ball in SF, the change of scenery has been good for him. Landry should be re-signed, but not for Ed Reed money. We have decent tools defensively, but the offense is bereft, starting with the O-line and QB. It's time to stop neglecting those positions, and I believe they will be addressed early in the draft.

I'm not going to disagree with you, rather, I'm going to write the opposite narrative.

The 2011 draft was a diversion from the norm because the Redskins had a strategy going into draft day, and it got blown up when Jake Locker got taken 8th overall by the Titans and then Robert Quinn got taken two picks ahead of where the Redskins traded down to, leaving Kerrigan as the best of the rest. The only pick they made who they had targeted was Jenkins. Hankerson fell, so they took a flyer on him even though they were lukewarm on him. The trade up for Helu made more sense because of the weakness at RB rather than because of their grade on a player.

The Redskins are always looking to put the best possible team on the field every week. That's why they re-signed Moss, upgraded the DL even though there weren't ideal options available, tried to fix that secondary with a vet like Atogwe. They've failed at winning because they struggle to evaluate talent.

The 2010 offseason was a good example of what the Redskins' top execs wanted to accomplish here. They didn't stick to it too long when it obviously wasn't working, but McNabb was supposed to be a savior, the defense was supposed to be better than this, particularly in the secondary, and they've never been hesitant to scapegoat players unceremoniously when their best laid plans don't work. In 2011, the Redskins tried something else because they had beaten themselves the prior year, not because they really believed in those methods.

****

I don't believe everything I just wrote, but I thought it would be good to see the perspective that there is no trend towards rebuilding.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's Monday, and I'm looking to stir the pot a little bit. Does anyone want to present the argument for, "the Skins are moving in the right direction?" What is this being based on?

I wish I could, but the best I can come up with is Vinny & Zorn are gone and Snyder doesn't appear to be playing FF with the team anymore with BA as GM.

As long as MS/KS/Haslett are here, no matter how we upgrade talent, on O we'll struggle in the Red Zone thanks to the heavy reliance on the pass and the ZB scheme. There's obviously an unwillingness to tailor the scheme to the talent available.

I think Haslett has done a B/B- job with what he has on D. I still think we're beter in a 4-3 alignment with Rak & Kerrigan being able to focus full time on their strengths (hand-in-dirt, get after QB) than in the 3-4 with those two learning new techniques. We still have no true NT. If we're staying 3-4 I'd love a more one-gap attacking style, which we won't do.

I think we'll improve if we hit on a true franchise caliber QB (but what team wouldn't). With the current coaching staff and philosophy, I don't see us ever progressing to be an elite team.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I wish I could, but the best I can come up with is Vinny & Zorn are gone and Snyder doesn't appear to be playing FF with the team anymore with BA as GM.

As long as MS/KS/Haslett are here, no matter how we upgrade talent, on O we'll struggle in the Red Zone thanks to the heavy reliance on the pass and the ZB scheme. There's obviously an unwillingness to tailor the scheme to the talent available.

I think Haslett has done a B/B- job with what he has on D. I still think we're beter in a 4-3 alignment with Rak & Kerrigan being able to focus full time on their strengths (hand-in-dirt, get after QB) than in the 3-4 with those two learning new techniques. We still have no true NT. If we're staying 3-4 I'd love a more one-gap attacking style, which we won't do.

I think we'll improve if we hit on a true franchise caliber QB (but what team wouldn't). With the current coaching staff and philosophy, I don't see us ever progressing to be an elite team.

Wow, this is almost exactly the way i feel, but said much better then what i could have typed out.

I truly believe that that solely relying on a ZB running scheme can only work if you have a top 5 QB, otherwise defenses will consistently beat you in the redzone and short yardage situations. Unfortunately finding and developing a guy into a top 5 QB is a rare and long process.

I also think the change from the 4-3 to 3-4 was a much bigger issue then people generally acknowledge, primarily because of the opportunity cost associated with making the switch; the entire rest of the team was put on hold and possible even set back to fix something that wasn’t broken. “Fixing” the d was a luxury that we wernt in the position to have.

But to me it’s less the coaching staff and more the current philosophy, maybe those are one in the same but I think philosophy can change and that’s why I see room for improvement. And imagine if we brought in a new coaching staff that wanted to change the d back to a 4-3 base and do entirely away with the ZB system, we would be just as bad in 2 years as we are now, maybe worse. So now that we wasted 2 years on fixing our D I think we can put less effort in upgrading it and focus on the offense a little. Id also love to go to a partial ZB scheme that incorporated plays suited for short yardage situations, but most importantly id like to see our coaches become more adaptive and less uncompromising in their philosophies.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

And imagine if we brought in a new coaching staff that wanted to change the d back to a 4-3 base and do entirely away with the ZB system, we would be just as bad in 2 years as we are now, maybe worse.

I don't think so. We have the pieces in-house for a 4-3 base. Two very good, young DEs. Our DTs are very solid for a 4-3, Cofield (1 Tech), Carriker (3 tech), Jenkins (1 tech), Bowen (either 1 or 3 tech). With Fletch (although long in the tooth) we have a borderline Pro Bowl MLB and Riley showed flashes yesterday. Our secondary isn't really affected either way. All we really need is some help at OLB.

Id also love to go to a partial ZB scheme that incorporated plays suited for short yardage situations, but most importantly id like to see our coaches become more adaptive and less uncompromising in their philosophies.

Excellent point, agree 100%.