A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by mooby

Exactly! No 2nd round pick = DOOOOOOOOOOMED! Who cares if RG3 could make as big a difference as multiple players?!

But that 2nd round CB we could have drafted would be CHAMP BAILEY GREAT!!!!!!!!

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If you really think about that movie it is just Forest Gump backwards.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

What year is it that we are starting with a 3rd round pick? Did we become New Orleans overnight?

[diehardskin2982]

I like to think that we aren't rebuilding just doing what's needed to compete. Year 1 of Shanny we thought we could plug in some vets and an established qb then we'll win, it didn't happen. He found quickly that age was the issue and a culture change was needed badly.
2nd year we used the uncapped year to clean house and get younger. The quality of QB was not available through freeagency. The draft was not an option do to the lockout. Therefore we traded down, acquired picks and focused on the defense getting 3-4 players and WR's. Now we have a decent defense. The secondary regressed and we need more production from the wideout position. It was nessesary to get a blue chip qb. We didn't tank the season and Barkley stayed for his senior year so the only option was trading up.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

I like to think that we aren't rebuilding just doing what's needed to compete. Year 1 of Shanny we thought we could plug in some vets and an established qb then we'll win, it didn't happen. He found quickly that age was the issue and a culture change was needed badly.
2nd year we used the uncapped year to clean house and get younger. The quality of QB was not available through freeagency. The draft was not an option do to the lockout. Therefore we traded down, acquired picks and focused on the defense getting 3-4 players and WR's. Now we have a decent defense. The secondary regressed and we need more production from the wideout position. It was nessesary to get a blue chip qb. We didn't tank the season and Barkley stayed for his senior year so the only option was trading up.

Good assessment. The defense is strong enough to be playoff caliber and the offense just needs a few more play makers. We gained that through free agency. Although the offensive line is in question, I like our O line. With the addition of either RG3 or Luck, that would put the Redskins into a position to greatly improve and be highly competitive.

[VegasSkinsFan]

Rebuilding, not rebuilding. It's not an important question. The real question is did we get better or worse than we were last season and have we positioned ourselves for long term success.

I think we will miss Landry more than people think even considering his injuries. Fletch is most likely going to get old in a hurry. Not loving the secondary or the depth at several spots most notably ol. Is RG3 going to be any better in his rookie season than the beck/grossman combo?

On the flip side RG3 has given us a potential stud QB. Jenkins should be back. Helu, hank and the other young guys will get a full offseason under their belts.

Personally, I'm renewing my Sunday ticket package with the hopes of winning 6-7 games, being competitive in another 6-7 games, and drinking heavily in the 2-4 games we will get blown out due to RG3 having a rookie QB game.

I'm also renewing because I think in three years we can be really special.

[diehardskin2982]

I think we are a victim of circumstance in terms of the secondary because of the cap penalty. Now, we are hoping that the front 5 will create enough pressure to make up for the decline in the secondary.

RG3 is going to be 100x better Grossman and Beck last season. Can you imagine the bootleg with a 4.37 fast QB that can throw an accurate deep arm. I think we will lead the league in plays for over 20 yards per catch and we'll have the number 1 rushing offense. The defense will struggle because they will have to deal with more desperate offenses.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

I think we are a victim of circumstance in terms of the secondary because of the cap penalty. Now, we are hoping that the front 5 will create enough pressure to make up for the decline in the secondary.

RG3 is going to be 100x better Grossman and Beck last season. Can you imagine the bootleg with a 4.37 fast QB that can throw an accurate deep arm. I think we will lead the league in plays for over 20 yards per catch and we'll have the number 1 rushing offense. The defense will struggle because they will have to deal with more desperate offenses.

I could definitely see that happening yardage-wise because everyone will be throwing to catch up (hopefully). Will be so nice to see us have a decent lead and be able to send a ton of blitzers though. There was maybe one game last year where we actually had a lead and just sent the wolves. Was OUTSTANDING to watch.

[Mahons21]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I could definitely see that happening yardage-wise because everyone will be throwing to catch up (hopefully). Will be so nice to see us have a decent lead and be able to send a ton of blitzers though. There was maybe one game last year where we actually had a lead and just sent the wolves. Was OUTSTANDING to watch.

Piggy-backing off that. If our offense does put our defense in that position, I think we'll have a lot more turnover opportunities. As you said we'll be able to "send the wolves" let our OLBs pin their ears back and rush the QB, our secondary will have more room to take chances (could obviously help Hall). Would be very fun to watch.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by VegasSkinsFan

Rebuilding, not rebuilding. It's not an important question. The real question is did we get better or worse than we were last season and have we positioned ourselves for long term success.

2010-no, 2011- yes, 2012- probably not, but it's all on Griffin's shoulders at this point.

[Schneed10]

I don't really think there needs to be a clear-cut distinction between "rebuilding" and trying to "win now". I think quite simply, the team is trying to improve. And the leadership knows that there are still a lot of holes.

Trading the picks for Griffin was a wise move from both the immediate future perspective and the long term perspective. A top notch franchise quarterback will deliver more win shares over the next 10 to 15 years than three non-QB first round picks would. And the likelihood of Griffin not panning out is about the same as the three picks it took to get him going bust, so downside risk does not come into the equation in my mind.

Aside from that, you simply fill every hole you can with young players, whenever you can. Who cares whether it's rebuilding or what. Just get better.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Trading the picks for Griffin was a wise move from both the immediate future perspective and the long term perspective. A top notch franchise quarterback will deliver more win shares over the next 10 to 15 years than three non-QB first round picks would. And the likelihood of Griffin not panning out is about the same as the three picks it took to get him going bust, so downside risk does not come into the equation in my mind.

This isn't true, necessarily, unless you're talking about being the very best of the best. Peyton Manning was probably more valuable to the Colts than Larry Fitzgerald, Nnamdi Asomugha, and Kevin Williams would have been combined.

But if Robert Griffin is the next Peyton Manning, the Colts should be taking him instead of Luck (and you couldn't reasonably suggest that if they knew Griffin would have Peyton Manning's career, that they would take Luck's upside instead). We only have the second pick not the first. One thing we can reasonably say about Luck/Griffin is that while we almost never see two QB prospects this good in the same draft, it's pretty safe to say they won't both be top 5 QBs of all time.

Donovan McNabb was a six time pro bowler. But you had to trade the picks that would eventually become Chris Samuels, Brian Urlacher, and Richard Seymour in order to get McNabb's career, there's no way you'd take the pro bowl quarterback over three game changing players.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This isn't true, necessarily, unless you're talking about being the very best of the best. Peyton Manning was probably more valuable to the Colts than Larry Fitzgerald, Nnamdi Asomugha, and Kevin Williams would have been combined.

But if Robert Griffin is the next Peyton Manning, the Colts should be taking him instead of Luck (and you couldn't reasonably suggest that if they knew Griffin would have Peyton Manning's career, that they would take Luck's upside instead). We only have the second pick not the first. One thing we can reasonably say about Luck/Griffin is that while we almost never see two QB prospects this good in the same draft, it's pretty safe to say they won't both be top 5 QBs of all time.

Donovan McNabb was a six time pro bowler. But you had to trade the picks that would eventually become Chris Samuels, Brian Urlacher, and Richard Seymour in order to get McNabb's career, there's no way you'd take the pro bowl quarterback over three game changing players.

In today's NFL? I absolutely would, you're nuts GTripp.

McNabb is a bad example, because Reid's offense had more to to with McNabb's success than McNabb himself. The closest representation of what Griffin could potentially become is Steve Young. Shanahan figures to use him similarly. I would gladly take that over what three first round picks would normally turn into - solid starters.

You're cherry picking historically great first rounders, which is not the correct way to analyze this. The consensus projection on Robert Griffin is a multi-pro bowl franchise caliber QB. So that's not the ceiling, and it's not the floor. It's the expectation. The consensus projection/expectation on first round picks in general is solid starter, with perhaps a pro bowl on occasion. The consensus expectation on first rounders is not the careers of Urlacher, Seymour and Samuels. That's the ceiling on a first round pick.

The appropriate comparison is something like Ronde Barber, Hakeem Nicks, and Jonathan Vilma.

When was the last team to make the Super Bowl without a franchise caliber QB. Matt Hasselbeck with Seattle? Griffin's potential trumps everything.

You think yourself in circles.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In today's NFL? I absolutely would, you're nuts GTripp.

McNabb is a bad example, because Reid's offense had more to to with McNabb's success than McNabb himself. The closest representation of what Griffin could potentially become is Steve Young. Shanahan figures to use him similarly. I would gladly take that over what three first round picks would normally turn into - solid starters.

You're cherry picking historically great first rounders, which is not the correct way to analyze this. The consensus projection on Robert Griffin is a multi-pro bowl franchise caliber QB. So that's not the ceiling, and it's not the floor. It's the expectation. The consensus projection/expectation on first round picks in general is solid starter, with perhaps a pro bowl on occasion. The consensus expectation on first rounders is not the careers of Urlacher, Seymour and Samuels. That's the ceiling on a first round pick.

The appropriate comparison is something like Ronde Barber, Hakeem Nicks, and Jonathan Vilma.

I think you're misinterpreting your own argument (did I just say that? Yeah, I did). I say that because the fallacy that you're accusing me of making is one that you made in the original.

Look, if you're projecting at an league average return on picks, then what we did to get Griffin is WAY less defensible. There is no way to get Steve Young in any draft by trading up. There simply isn't a Hall of Fame quarterback every year, hardly ever is there two in a single class. If there was a Hall of Fame quarterback, assuming perfect information, the Colts would take him first, which is what I pointed out in the first place.

So in part to justify this trade, you have to make the leap of faith that the Colts wouldn't draft the next Steve Young because of football reasons. While a lot of the rhetoric about Griffin and Luck seems to lead in that direction, rhetoric isn't much of an argument. When professionals make their draft boards, it's easier to visualize that while that while the professionals believe there are two or three franchise quarterbacks in this draft, and the Redskins are ensured to get one of the targeted players, it's still INCREDIBLY hard to justify moving up from 6 to 2 to do so.

Obviously, your argument is flawed because we can't just suppose that Griffin is the next Steve Young. But you can argue that if you apply consistent principle, which means that you need to assume that in that paying the opportunity cost to get a guy who could (if everything goes perfect -- including the Colts don't pick him) be the next Steve Young, then you're paying the price of three potential chances for everything to go right and draft potential hall of famers. Otherwise, if you're comparing Steve Young/Robert Griffin to three random Redskins first round selections over the years, it's useful to remember that the Redskins never took Steve Young either.

When was the last team to make the Super Bowl without a franchise caliber QB. Matt Hasselbeck with Seattle? Griffin's potential trumps everything.

You think yourself in circles.

The simplest way to answer would be to respond in a question such as "when was the last time the Redskins played in the super bowl with <add any qualifier here.?" Trends are only kept to be broken.

However, I'll exercise my brain a bit and point out that a team was playing in overtime in a championship game with Alex Smith as it's quarterback about two months ago, so I'm guessing they still would have booked the hotel had they been the first team to kick a FG in OT.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think you're misinterpreting your own argument (did I just say that? Yeah, I did). I say that because the fallacy that you're accusing me of making is one that you made in the original.

Look, if you're projecting at an league average return on picks, then what we did to get Griffin is WAY less defensible. There is no way to get Steve Young in any draft by trading up. There simply isn't a Hall of Fame quarterback every year, hardly ever is there two in a single class. If there was a Hall of Fame quarterback, assuming perfect information, the Colts would take him first, which is what I pointed out in the first place.

So in part to justify this trade, you have to make the leap of faith that the Colts wouldn't draft the next Steve Young because of football reasons. While a lot of the rhetoric about Griffin and Luck seems to lead in that direction, rhetoric isn't much of an argument. When professionals make their draft boards, it's easier to visualize that while that while the professionals believe there are two or three franchise quarterbacks in this draft, and the Redskins are ensured to get one of the targeted players, it's still INCREDIBLY hard to justify moving up from 6 to 2 to do so.

Obviously, your argument is flawed because we can't just suppose that Griffin is the next Steve Young. But you can argue that if you apply consistent principle, which means that you need to assume that in that paying the opportunity cost to get a guy who could (if everything goes perfect -- including the Colts don't pick him) be the next Steve Young, then you're paying the price of three potential chances for everything to go right and draft potential hall of famers. Otherwise, if you're comparing Steve Young/Robert Griffin to three random Redskins first round selections over the years, it's useful to remember that the Redskins never took Steve Young either.

For some reason you're assuming that there can't be two extremely high performing QBs coming out of the same draft. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the likelihood isn't there this year. Step back from the prob and stat and actually analyze these two QB prospects. One (Luck) is projected to be the best coming out since Peyton. Griffin is thought to be right there, to the point where many are asking whether RG3 deserves to go #1. So the Colts will take whichever one they think is best. So just because Luck is being anointed that guy doesn't mean Griffin isn't also projected to be the same. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it can't happen.

Forget Steve Young, I'm sorry I brought him up because it's causing you to miss my point. Here's what I'm trying to say. The expectation of the typical second quarterback taken in a draft is not that of a pro bowler. But this is not your typical second quarterback taken. This is Robert Griffin, who by all accounts, is different. He's deserving of going #1 by a long shot in any year where Andrew Luck is not also available at the same time.

Forget prob and stat GTripp. Analyze the real world situation you find yourself in. This is a unique situation this year, there are two QBs projected for a multi pro bowl level of play. While it would normally be foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for the typical 2nd QB available, it is absolutely not foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for a player who projects like Robert Griffin.

With the rules changing the way they have in recent years, the group-think regarding the value of surrounding talent fades into the oblivion of history. Having a highly accurate QB who avoids sacks and bad plays is just about everything in today's NFL.