A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building

[Chief X_Phackter]

We are who we think we are!!!

[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.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. With the additions of Garcon and Morgan and possibly drafting RG3 or Andrew Luck, to speculate feels good. The defense should improve also. But it's all speculation. It all looks good on paper. I remember the Pittsburgh Steelers making it to the AFC championship game in Big Ben's rookie season and in some regards this Redskin team is shaping up to be just as good as those 2004 Steelers. A good running game, decent passing game, rookie quarterback, and a high ranking defense got them that far. Can the Redskins be similar in 2012? Remains to be seen.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Redskins cashed in everything to build the best possible passing game they could have going into 2012; that doesn't strike one as patient or building.

The cost of trading up to select either Griffin or Luck wasn't ideal but it was acceptable.
The FO/staff almost had to make that move if for nothing more then self preservation, thankfully both are perceived by the media/fanbase as 'worthy' prospects.
Despite how I feel about Tannehill, his perception from the media/fanbase doesn't come with the same 'worthy' label and therefore doesn't come with the same grace period as with Griffin/Luck.
And imo this FO/staff tenure beyond this season is very closely linked with the fan perception.
In short they cannot afford to lose the fans.
And not trading up and drafting Tannehill would have created an uphill battle with the fanbase from the start because of the media/fanbase perception of Tannehill being a 'reach' or 'settling'.

However the decision to rebuild the WR corps with Garcon and Morgan especially after the news of our league imposed FA/cap space sanctions leaves me somewhat puzzled.

I guess at the end of the day I wouldn't place adding 'explosive' plays to the passing game via a offseason focus on FA WRs wouldn't have been my idea of how to best use our limited FA resources.

Garcon and Morgan's contracts suggest that adding more 'explosive' WRs was the number 1 focus this offseason which tells me that lack of 'explosive' plays was the fault of the WRs alone.
But, my eyes tell me different.
My eyes tell me that Rex Grossman was the major cause of the lack of explosive plays.
Even the people that dislike Mc5 must admit that the passing game created more explosive plays with the same receiving corps.
My eyes tell me that upgrade from Rex to a rookie QB but Griffin specifically stand to improve the number of explosive plays on his own.
A key factor for increasing 'explosive' plays is creating time.
Griffin can create time on his own another way to increase time is through pass protection.
But, RT is a position they have yet to address and there was a tailor made RT for this system on the market.

I believe that building a passing game with a young/rookie QB takes time and that having veteran WRs that know the scheme as opposed to learning the scheme can only make the transition smoother.
Other then the rare true No.1 WR I think that WRs are compliments to the core of the team as opposed to the core of the team itself.
Imo RT(OL), LB and S are core positions that need to be addressed this offseason.
Especially when Mike S. was talking about how important a solid defense, strong OL and running game are for a young/rookie QBs success.
But then again Mike Shanahan will say anything.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

The cost of trading up to select either Griffin or Luck wasn't ideal but it was acceptable.
The FO/staff almost had to make that move if for nothing more then self preservation, thankfully both are perceived by the media/fanbase as 'worthy' prospects.
Despite how I feel about Tannehill, his perception from the media/fanbase doesn't come with the same 'worthy' label and therefore doesn't come with the same grace period as with Griffin/Luck.
And imo this FO/staff tenure beyond this season is very closely linked with the fan perception.
In short they cannot afford to lose the fans.

However the decision to rebuild the WR corps with Garcon and Morgan after the news of our league imposed FA/cap space sanctions leaves me somewhat puzzled especially consider the other needs like RT, S (both), ILB, RG.

Garcon and Morgan's contracts suggest that adding more 'explosive' WRs was the number 1 focus this offseason which tells me that lack of 'explosive' plays was the fault of the WRs alone.
But, my eyes tell me different.
My eyes tell me that Rex Grossman was the major cause of the lack of explosive plays.
Even the people that dislike Mc5 must admit that the passing game created more explosive plays with the same receiving corps.
My eyes tell me that upgrade even from a rookie QB but Griffin specifically stand to improve the number of explosive plays on his own.
Imo a key factor for increasing 'explosive' plays is creating time.
Griffin can create time on his own another way to increase time is through pass protection.
But, RT is a position they have yet to address and there was a tailor made RT for this system on the market.

I guess at the end of the day I wouldn't place adding 'explosive' plays to the passing game via a offseason focus on FA WRs wouldn't have been my idea of how to best use our limited FA resources.

I believe that building a passing game with a young/rookie QB takes time and that having veteran WRs that know the scheme as opposed to learning the scheme can only make the transition smoother.
Other then the rare true No.1 WR I think that WRs are compliments to the core of the team as opposed to the core of the team itself.
Imo RT(OL), LB and S are core positions.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that even if you're right and merely getting Robert Griffin fixes the problem of lacking explosive players, that they still replaced players like Armstrong (who I still believe in) and Moss (who I no longer believe in) because they don't believe in them.

The problem of course is not that they saw their available cap room as an avenue to solve a perceived problem at receiver. The problem is that their attribution of our offensive struggles to our quarterbacks and receivers has prevented them from seeing the other problems.

They could have bargain shopped at receiver and probably improved competition by as much as they did. Clearly, they weren't looking for competition. They just don't think Moss or Armstrong can start in the NFL anymore (and in 2010, I will grant you that they were an excellent top two dragged down by the corpse of Joey Galloway). I mean, Early Doucet was out there for a while. Chaz Schilens was out there. Jerome Simpson is STILL out there. Jerricho Cotchery, Braylon Edwards: still free agents.

If the contracts for Morgan and Garcon were to be voided today by the evil spirit of John Mara, we could easily replace them both at 1/10th the cost. At least for the 2012 season.

And it's obvious they still like Jammal Brown at RT. Shanahan thinks he just hasn't been healthy. I'm not sure why he thinks this year will be any different, but that's what he thinks.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

this year, for example. I expect our offense to be better, but our secondary and LB corp may be worse. that's more like a trade off than an upgrade, but those are the choices you make and you just hope that overall you've done enough to win more games. I think RGIII will be huge in that regard, maybe even in year 1 and 2, but that, talent for dollar, garcon and morgan are a bit borderline.

It's easy to upgrade your top 53 with sub $2mill/year deals. upgrading the top 22 usually takes real money, but it's important to pick correctly there, since the contracts kind of marry you to those players. when you pick incorrectly (mcnabb/haynesworth/etc etc) it really stunts the team, since you've waste time developing players and cap space not signing guys that could actually help you win. It's MUCH better to not sign someone over giving big money to the wrong guy. you can't win via free agency with a 50% hit rate (which is what vinny had). BA has done better on that front.

Are MS/BA hitting at even close to a 50% rate in FA? My sense is that they are not, which is why we've been so poor on the field the last two years.

Their "successful" acquisitions have been Gaffney, and probably Kerrigan someday soon right? Trent Williams and Kory L, maybe? After that, there's a lot of "looks good in limited time" but then I think we need to account for why time is so limited on a team with so many holes. Hankerson and Jenkins: injury. That's easy. But Helu had basically no competition at RB last year until Royster got hot in the last three games.

I guess we'll see.

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Mendacity, son, mendacity! Mr. Mike simply didn't tell us the truth. He knew he didn't have a playoff offense, just like he knew that Grossman and Beck couldn't get the job done at QB.

You seem to think that Mike Shanahan lacks the ability to realistically evaluate the talent on his team. I don't. I just think that he doesn't mind telling a few fibs about what he thinks of the talent level on his team.

For some reason I don't understand, the entire Redskins management team refuses to admit that they are rebuilding.

I would suggest that Mike is totally okay lying to the fans, but his quote about the "playoff-caliber" offense was, in context, unprompted. Larry Michael's question was open-ended, and asked how Mike Shanahan might go about improving the offense.

This was before 3 first round picks and a 2nd got traded to move up four spots, so obviously, that would have been a sufficient answer to the question. A simple "oh, you'll see" does the trick.

So EVEN if we assume that the playoff-caliber offense was a rehearsed line meant simply to project confidence instead of actual football acumen, then at very least, he was too cavalier about using it when he wasn't prompted.

It's Larry Michael. He wasn't trying to get Shanahan to admit his son's offense sucks.

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that even if you're right and merely getting Robert Griffin fixes the problem of lacking explosive players, that they still replaced players like Armstrong (who I still believe in) and Moss (who I no longer believe in) because they don't believe in them.....
......They could have bargain shopped at receiver and probably improved competition by as much as they did. Clearly, they weren't looking for competition. They just don't think Moss or Armstrong can start in the NFL anymore (and in 2010, I will grant you that they were an excellent top two dragged down by the corpse of Joey Galloway). I mean, Early Doucet was out there for a while. Chaz Schilens was out there. Jerome Simpson is STILL out there. Jerricho Cotchery, Braylon Edwards: still free agents.

If the contracts for Morgan and Garcon were to be voided today by the evil spirit of John Mara, we could easily replace them both at 1/10th the cost. At least for the 2012 season.

And it's obvious they still like Jammal Brown at RT. Shanahan thinks he just hasn't been healthy. I'm not sure why he thinks this year will be any different, but that's what he thinks.

No lie, I dry heaved when I read your last paragraph and I hope in my heart of hearts that its not true (even though all signs point towards it).
It galls me that this franchise has gone so long without a starting caliber RT.
Hopefully they'll get lucky and draft our Jared Veldeer in the 3rd or Willie Smith emerges as an NFL caliber RT.
But, man I would feel much better about the chances of our rookie QB with a more certain soluton at RT.

I don't think Moss production/performance warrants being replaced this year but that's a discussion we've already had.
If Moss is still around come training camp I have no doubt that he will play his way on the team and that there will be reports of Moss looking like 'the best WR in camp'.
But, I agree that if they wanted to replace Moss they could/should have baragain shopped for WRs.
I mentioned Harry Douglass in the Garcon/Morgan thread along with some of the options you mentioned; but that's spilled milk now I guess.
Garcon and Morgan don't lack for talent/ability I just hope their signings don't preclude addressing other needs.

The problem of course is not that they saw their available cap room as an avenue to solve a perceived problem at receiver. The problem is that their attribution of our offensive struggles to our quarterbacks and receivers has prevented them from seeing the other problems.

I think this is the same problem.
(I excuse the QB position) but I think their conclusion that the offensive struggles were caused by the WR lead them to use the available cap room to address the WR problem.
And I believe addressing the WRs immediately during the initial stages of FA is a further evidence that our OC's focus is clearly on the passing game and that he has a lot of pull.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I think this is the same problem.
(I excuse the QB position) but I think their conclusion that the offensive struggles were caused by the WR lead them to use the available cap room to address the WR problem.
And I believe addressing the WRs immediately during the initial stages of FA is a further evidence that our OC's focus is clearly on the passing game and that he has a lot of pull.

But this is all validation of what we've both been saying most of the last two years. I don't think Kyle is a bad OC either, but the problem is that there are a number of good DCs in this league and the ones that scheme back at Kyle on a drive to drive basis have great success. Rex and Rob Ryan in particular.

Not all teams have good DCs though, and the Shanahan's always come into games well prepared to attack weaknesses, so on the aggregate, we'll never post poor numbers as an offensive unit.

Good defensive teams can find our weaknesses (like the right side of the OL), and a big gamble the Redskins seem to be making is that Robert Griffin will be SO good in our system that you can attack all the weaknesses you want, and it wont matter. Our talent + scheme > your talent plus scheme.

Which when you have the recent history of the Redskins, is high on arrogance and short on substance, but at the end of the season we'll judge them on whether they were right/wrong or successful/unsuccessful, not arrogant or humble.

[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.

[Stuck in TX]

I think that we have been rebuilding since the fall of Cerrato. Offense: The year Shanny and Allen arrived we got a QB that our OC beleived in, but lacked the leadership to develop those skills. Without a veteran QB, Shannahan went after someone he thought could fill that role for Grossman (granted, he was DEAD wrong, but shanny is human and mistakes are made by every HC). Not saying it was because of McNabb, but we did see flashes (very tiny flashes) of brilliance from Grossman. Also, Allen was able to turn a few picks into a lot of picks and we now have a young core at offense. We also have three RBs that I would start tomorrow. Before Shanny it was just Portis or Betts and usually one of them was injured. We do not have a "threat" reciever....YET....but we all know that a quality WR rarely develops in his first or sometimes even second season (nor have we had a reliable QB to get the ball there). Offensive line has improved vastly in my opinion and I bet we could still find some pretty good line talent in the 3rd round this year, and thats assuming Allen doesnt find some way to turn the few picks we have into something in the 2nd or maybe more in the 3rd rounds. Deffense: 3-4 has been a bit slow to convert to, but show me a team that it was easy for. We got a steal in the draft last year at DE (good scouting), and we have quality LBs. We have seen better days at CB and S but thats another indication that we are rebuilding. We had a lot of old, mediocre players on our team when Haslett took over, and even then all that was left were players who were drafted specifically for 4-3. Over the past two years, we have built, in my opinion, an above average defense with a young, durable core. I also think it is an indication of the direction we are moving in. Landry fizzled and Otogwe was less than advertised. Just like with the offense, Allen has shown us he can work with what he has as far as picks go and quality can still exist in the 3rd round.

For the argument that we are not rebuilding because we "mortgaged our future" to get RG3 or Luck....This fanbase had many questions for Allen when Cerrato was fired. Where do we go from here? Allen showed us when he "sold the farm" that he is confident of who is available. Also, two QBs of that caliber don't come out of every draft. Getting a new QB in itself is an indication that we are rebuilding, and I think Allen has been trying and continues to try to show the fanbase that when given a few draft picks we can still get the job done in the draft. At this rate, I see the Redskins a force to be reckoned with for many years very soon. This year? Perhaps. It is for sure going to be interesting!

[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.