Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

To this, let me say that if the Redskins wanted a seamless transition between building predominantly through FA talent to building predominantly through the draft, picking at a similar hit rate to the rest of the league isn't good enough. We need(ed?) to take low risk players at positions of need with considerable upside. Even as I write that, it sounds impossible, but I know for a fact it was a reasonable expectation.

But ultimately, I have a real problem with the FO trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fanbase by asking them to be patient with the building through the draft process, and then not demonstrating patience in the face of the Daniels injury by dealing for Jason Taylor. That is NOT building through the draft, it's throwing away your most valuable (wage-adjusted) pick for a 34 year old former superstar. Fine, if you think it's the move that gets us over the top, I impore you to do it. Just don't turn around after the season (and to Vinny's credit, he hasn't done this publically) and be like "we'll just be patient while we build through the draft." Uh, okay. Thanks for the reassurance.

I agree that the Redskins don't have a consistent, clear, long-term plan. They do seem to seize oppertunities in the market better than the league expectation, but that might just be thanks to having a huge cash surplus as an asset, and being so close to the salary cap that they have to wait for oppertunities (like a new CBA in 06 or a last capped year) to spend themselves ahead of their competition.

Fair point. I think there needs to be balance between the trades, draft, and free agency.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by redsk1

I think you are seeing thru the b&g glasses. Yes, we have had some good draft picks over the last 5 years. We have some talent. I love some of our picks. We miss on some but so does everyone. We just don't have enough picks. You make a list of our core guys, w/ most i really like but w/ some who haven't done jack. We're talking philosophy not a few good draft picks.

Since you want to compare though lets compare a team or two that i mentioned...

SD: Rivers, sproles, Cromartie, Vincent Jackson, Merriman, Michael Turner (no longer there), good oline, good dline, Gates, Castillo

That was w/out doing research.

We don't have as much talent as you might think. I like our guys too but at this moment we don't have the talent that alot of the upper tier teams do.

Bottom line, building thru the draft is a proven winner. Not building thru the draft is not a proven winner. Until i see otherwise I'll have a problem w/ throwing away draft picks.

What's your point here?

By the way, Vincent Jackson, the late 2nd round pick...had 3 catches his rookie season

[Carnage]

Whats the problem? we have a new plan every year?

[GTripp0012]

I do think a team could build a strategy off of trying to hit it big in the draft with mid round draft picks: going "BPA" as they say by looking for those high upside players who tend to be overvalued, but only giving the big money to the ones that pan out.

I tend to think this is the kind of strategy that Vinny wants to use, but he just can't do it in the environment that the Redskins have. Too much pressure to trade your picks for win-now opportunities. But, unfortunately, that's the difference between having a margin for error, and needing to nail the draft every year to support the age of your team from going all 2003 Raiders on us.

[SmootSmack]

At the end of the day, how many people really care if they have a plan or not. People just want results. Cerrato could hold a press conference and say "our plan is to completely gut our team of veterans, start all the young guys, and build a team for long term success" and after a 5-11 season we'd all say Booo!!!

Or he could say "We shelled out a few hundred million for the best Pro Bowlers money can buy, mortgaged our future, but this should work for a year until we have to dismantle the team"and after a Super Bowl win we'd all say Yay!!!!

[GTripp0012]

Well, if we accidentally won a Super Bowl one year (lets say 2010) with the FO making a bunch of bad long term decisions, I'm not sure how much credit they would really be deserving of.

People know that I'm not hesitant to extend the congratulatory stick to organizations that make good long term moves, even ones that I spend the better part of four months wishing the very worst on (Eagles). I also feel that I'm not likely to confuse unexpected success for a good team building philosophy.

The silver lining is that none of the Skins relative successes have been undeserved in the last eight to ten years or so. The playoff win was the result of shrewd FA moves in 2005 that any other team could have made, but didn't.

[53Fan]

I think the plan is to get younger and stay competitive at the same time, with the means that are available at the present time. That appears to be what they're doing. Maybe that is oversimplifying it, but that appears to be their plan.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I think the plan is to get younger and stay competitive at the same time, with the means that are available at the present time. That appears to be what they're doing. Maybe that is oversimplifying it, but that appears to be their plan.

Right, but then you have to adjust your draft strategy to support that, which means "Mel Kiper likes his upside" or "we just took BPA" is no longer a reasonable defense for the Devin Thomas pick.

A more reasonable defense would be "we need our third receiver this year to come from the draft. we scoured through the prospects for the most productive college receivers, and we decided that Jordy Nelson/Limas Sweed/DeSean Jackson gives us the best chance to fill that need cheaply, and we like what he adds to our special teams as well".

And I understand that Sweed (who I admit, topped my WR draft board last year, with Donnie Avery at No. 2) struggled every bit as much as Thomas last year. But you ask me who will have the better career of the two, I guarentee that it will be Sweed.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

How can a team accidentally win a superbowl?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

How can a team accidentally win a superbowl?

Hypothetically:

Let's say the 2009 team goes to the playoffs on a first round bye, wins a playoff game, and gets eliminated in the NFC Championship game. In the offseason, a new CBA is agreed to by the players union and the league owners. Campbell gets the franchise tag, but Carlos Rogers signs with the Falcons for 10 million a year. In the preseason, Clinton Portis tears two ligaments in his knee and misses the year. Chris Samuels isn't healthy when the year starts. Stephon Heyer is the de facto starter at LT. Devin Thomas doesn't even make the team. We picked up the options on Carter and Randle El, who are both in decline at this point. Jansen is cut, but there's no one on the line to replace him but Heyer. Because the team finished in the top four teams the year before, we can only sign one player (to replace Rogers) and the market doesn't offer anything we like anyway. Point is: clearly, this is a worse team than the 2009 version (hypotetically).

Only, the team wins 10 games anyway, and the NFC East. Jason Campbell makes the pro-bowl, and Ladell Betts has an improbable 1,200 yd season at age 31 (averging only 3.9 YPC though). The defense gives up a ton of points, but also happened to lead the league in turnovers forced. The Redskins are only +21 in pt. differential, but win the division anyway, thanks to crappy play from Eli Manning and Donovan McNabb, and a total defensive collapse in Dallas.

The team isn't expected to make a big splash in the playoffs, but wins a hard fought game against the upstart 11-win Lions during WC Weekend, and the next week, faces No. 1 seed Green Bay. Green Bay won 14 games in 2010, and is the media darling, but the Redskins win a low scoring game thanks to a complete meltdown by Aaron Rodgers, 4 INTs and a FL. The Championship game is played at FedEx field because the 2nd seed Falcons lost a nailbiter to the 9 win WC 49ers after Mark Sanchez (1:1 INT-TD rate in 2010) gets a game clinching INT dropped by Carlos Rogers. The 49ers really have no business even being in the playoffs, but thanks to back to back road wins, are Washington's opponent in the 2010 NFC Championship game. Washington wins a poorly played ball game 20-11.

Then in SB XLV, Jason Campbell has a banner day, and Norv Turner loses for the first time in his career against a former employer (yes, he's now 8-0 against the Raiders and 2-1 against the Skins). The Redskins win SB 45. And yet, are in much worse shape going forward then they currently appear to be.

That's what I mean by accidentally winning a SB. A non-super bowl champion regresses in skill, but wins a championship the next year anyway.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Right, but then you have to adjust your draft strategy to support that, which means "Mel Kiper likes his upside" or "we just took BPA" is no longer a reasonable defense for the Devin Thomas pick.

A more reasonable defense would be "we need our third receiver this year to come from the draft. we scoured through the prospects for the most productive college receivers, and we decided that Jordy Nelson/Limas Sweed/DeSean Jackson gives us the best chance to fill that need cheaply, and we like what he adds to our special teams as well".

And I understand that Sweed (who I admit, topped my WR draft board last year, with Donnie Avery at No. 2) struggled every bit as much as Thomas last year. But you ask me who will have the better career of the two, I guarentee that it will be Sweed.

By means that are available at the time I'm refering to draft, FA's, or trade. Picking Thomas did make us younger and I believe we stayed competitive despite the last half of the season. Was it a good pick? I think that is yet to be seen, but we did need help at the wideout position. With our past attempts at finding a receiver in free agency, taking a young talented one in the draft does'nt seem like such a bad idea. Taking Thomas instead of Sweed does'nt vary from the plan. I consider that more of an evaluation issue.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

By means that are available at the time I'm refering to draft, FA's, or trade. Picking Thomas did make us younger and I believe we stayed competitive despite the last half of the season. Was it a good pick? I think that is yet to be seen, but we did need help at the wideout position. With our past attempts at finding a receiver in free agency, taking a young talented one in the draft does'nt seem like such a bad idea. Taking Thomas instead of Sweed does'nt vary from the plan. I consider that more of an evaluation issue.

Well, it's evaluation, but it's also negligence.

It's not something that you can do if you are trying to use the draft to supplement an aging team. You don't have the luxury to limit your search to WRs 6'3" or taller if you are serious about taking BPA. That's only the case if you are serious about taking people who look like football players, but you aren't actually concerned with the result.

If you are going with a load up on picks and build exclusively through the draft strategy, drafting a specific body type becomes far more defensible, even if he busts. You simply just don't give him another contract. If the number of picks you have is equal to or less than the number of needs you have to fill, you can't miss. Period.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I am one frustrated Redskins fan. Here's what I see.

We've gone back to the same bad habits that have cost us draft picks and cap space and that I believe will surely doom us to continued mediocrity. The Jason Taylor fiasco, another of our customary panic moves, cost us dearly in draft picks. Albert Haynesworth, as great as he is, represents a whopping chunk of our cap space which seems to have precluded our making other FA moves.

Meanwhile, we have holes to fill - big holes. We need a RT, a SLB, a RDE, OL backups, a Kicker, a Punter, a PR, and maybe more. Right now, it looks like we might bring back Daniels and Washington. That's nice, but, at this point in their careers they're only stop-gap solutions.

Even with Haynesworth, this doesn't look to me like a team that is poised to make a playoff run in the tough NFC East. Sure, I wanted Haynesworth, but what do I know? I'm just a dumb fan who loves to watch great football players do their thing in B&G. I don't need to have a plan. But shouldn't the FO have one? If they do, I just can't see it.

If you can detect a plan in all this, clue me in. Also, what do you think the plan should be?

The move for Jason Taylor was heralded at the time. That was a serious need after that season ending injury on the first day of camp.

Besides, there was no way of knowing that JT was going to be injured for that long, he had a long track record of consecutive starts going when he came to Washington.

[PennSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

At the end of the day, how many people really care if they have a plan or not. People just want results. Cerrato could hold a press conference and say "our plan is to completely gut our team of veterans, start all the young guys, and build a team for long term success" and after a 5-11 season we'd all say Booo!!!

Or he could say "We shelled out a few hundred million for the best Pro Bowlers money can buy, mortgaged our future, but this should work for a year until we have to dismantle the team"and after a Super Bowl win we'd all say Yay!!!!

I wouldn't. I like that plan. That's the way the Caps were built. Now, I would only want to go through that plan if Cerrato was not the architect. I am one of those that has NO, not little, but NO confidence in Vinny Cerrato. Not has he provided one shred of legitimacy.

[freddyg12]

This got a bit interesting, though I have to admit when I first saw the title I was like 'here we go again...'

Snyder clearly has a "business plan," and maybe that's what frustrates us the most, we see that there hasn't been a true effort made to build the team patiently w/depth.

I'm not saying that he deliberately sets out to raise expectations & then field a mediocre team w/little to no depth. But the PR/marketing biz was how he got rich to start with, and his financial success w/the Redskins has only reinforced his business acumen.

I'm sure in his mind he believes that the team can be good almost every year. And I'm damn sure that in his mind the Skins have a "plan." We may not like it, but there's a plan fo sho.