Om Field: Breaking Down the Lines (Pt. 1)

But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers

It was a different time back then. I don't think you can make the comparison to today.

The level of athlete is much different, the level of scouting is higher i would believe and the ferocity in which the game is played is much different. I would guess that the NFL is a much younger league than it was back then. Back in the 80's, you might be able to build a team of "older guys." Now, in many positions the older guys have been beaten down so much it makes it difficult.

It would be an interesting comparison if we had the data.

But it's not all that unlike how we built our Super Bowl teams in the 80s. What I'd be really interested in though is how Cerrato drafted when he was the 49ers
Two thoughts.

1) The Redskins had The Hogs, and to somewhat lesser extent the DL, put together very early in Gibbs I. Bostic was a FA in ‘80, Jacoby a UDFA defensive player in '81 that Buges converted, and they drafted Grimm and May in rounds 1 and 2 in ‘81. By the way, also in that draft: 1st round, Mark May. 2nd round, Russ Grim. 4th round, Dexter Manley. 8th round, Darryl Grant. 12th round, Clint Didier. It helps to have a Bobby Beathard around.

Point being, by combining high picks and great eye for late-round and undrafted talent, they built the foundation of their lines early on and had the luxury of picking their spots in subsequent years. Over the past 10 years, Skins have done neither--they haven’t invested in the top end, and they have missed repeatedly on the low, leaving us where we are today.

2) There’s a thread on ES that tracked his SF moves. I’ll link it here shortly.

Edit: here ya go (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=194590). You may find it very interesting.

I don't think it's arrogant at all to believe you can build solid lines with later round picks and FA's. Tons of quality lineman come in rounds 3 and beyond.
I do. Particularly when you use literally NO higher picks in conjuction. Low-rouders that “hit” are out there, but far fewer than there are high-rounders who become stalwarts. That’s mostly opinion at this point, but my strong sense based on the research I've done so far is that the facts back it up pretty clearly.

The Redskins have gambled, and lost, on using late-rounders (talking 6ths and 7ths here, which represent exactly half of the picks they have used on the lines in the last ten years) to build a base of young guys to have ready to step in when the crop of older FA’s, and the last two high picks they did use–Samuels and Jansen–finally hit the wall. That and a shotgun approach to bringing in journeyman and undrafted FA’s by the busload hoping to find someone who can play.

I’ll stop short of saying it can’t work that way, but I’m 100% comfortable saying it hasn’t–not here. And when I look at the other division teams that do take the lines seriously enough to invest high-rounders in dominate us up front, I’m comfortable enough to hang it all out there like I am with this series. :)

Hello, brother. Fancy meeting you here. Nice work as usual. I too would like to see what else you bring forth on this subject. :)

It was a different time back then. I don't think you can make the comparison to today.

The level of athlete is much different, the level of scouting is higher i would believe and the ferocity in which the game is played is much different. I would guess that the NFL is a much younger league than it was back then. Back in the 80's, you might be able to build a team of "older guys." Now, in many positions the older guys have been beaten down so much it makes it difficult.

It would be an interesting comparison if we had the data.

Definitely agree it was a different time. For one thing, back then we probably would have been less likely to be able to make a move for Andre Carter for example. For another, when we draft a guy like Derrick Dockery we'd probably have him here for the long term.

My point was only that in those days a lot of the key linemen (offense and defense) that led us to Super Bowl titles were late draft picks of ours (and other teams), so it's not entirely unreasonable to think that some of our mid to late round picks could be key for us.

Matty:

If you are right - that you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents - then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...

Matty:

If you are right - that you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents - then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...

Well, if I remember correctly, they did a massuve purging of the scouting department this off-season so we shall see over the next few years what sort of impact that has.

Matty:

If you are right - that you can indeed build a solid OL and DL with low round picks and undrafted free agents - then the results for the Skins from 2000 - 2008 indicate that the scouting department has been waaay off in terms of what "diamonds in the rough" they should take or that the coaching staff has not done very much with the "diamonds in the rough" they were handed.

I think it is the scouting department/draft board builders - - but It could be the coaches too...
Well, that's the kind of statement we're going to put to the test. I'm going through the OL an DL depth charts of the Redskins, NFCE and a representative sample of other NFL teams--good and bad--to see just how their lines are put together. No saying you aren't right--just that I have doubts.

If our competition in the NFC East thought they could build their OL and DL solely with low numbers of low-ranked draft picks they would have done so.

We have traded draft picks for FA and then used our top draft picks for non-OL/DL choices.

The Redskins strategy has been to try to get a good OL / DL without using our best draft picks to get there. This correlates with our mediocre win/loss record over this last 8 years.

I think the work in blogs like this are admirable, but OM the thing is you may as well just post a three word post .. our FO sucks ... as from reading your article that looks to be the opinion you start with ...

When you compare our lines with the NFCE be sure to compare how many times their FO have had to change coaches, how many philoposophy changes they have been through and how much disruption this flux causes to player acquisition .

Look at the Skins in 1999-2008

We have had the down field passing requirements of Norv Turner, that team got gutted by the power rushing needs of Marty Shottenhimer ( a Guy who drafted 2 WR's in his only draft (2 of 5 picks) Gardener and McCants) that team was taken appart by the confused Steve Spurrier and then rebuilt by Joe Gibbs who was hampered by the free wheeling and dealing of his previous administrations devaluing draft picks and now that has to be tempered from a power run game to WCO with Jim Zorn ...

Zorn has also been hampered by the fact he inheritied the team that Gibbs built in terms of most of the coaches and 22 of the returning starters from a 9-7 playoff team

it should also be pointed out that only Marty and Norv were fired Spurrier jumped before he was shoved ( The Snyder wanted to give him another year) and Gibbs walked away from his 5 year promise ...

Also remember that Gibbs also tried to engineer his sucession with Williams and Saunders so tools were brought in to appease them .

the only team that comes close to this is the Cowboys and only in the last two years has their line come together .. and they have drafted 2 of their starting linemen Adams and Gourde and only one of those came this century..

Going into 2008 with a new system there were two areas of strength that really needed little imediate help the offensive line and the secondary . The areas that needed the most help was WR, DL (particulary DT) and possibly the LB ...

We managed to address one of those areas in WR and then forgot about the DL and other needs .. but again you can only pick up who is there ....It would have been great to get both the Longs, Branden Albert, Gholsten etc but even with the most blatent cheating and use of multiple teams on Madden that would have been a tall order . I may be alone but I have seen some flashes from the WR's Thomas in particular that get me excited of what can be, although admittedly not enough ...

Our line suddenly became like the Chiefs line did recently, it went from being a good vetran line to an OLD line overnight .. In hindsight yes we should have picked up an offensive line man or two ... though in fairness we did select Chad Rienheart in the 3rd which used to be a day one pick .

Sometimes new HC come in and have amazing drafts early in thier careers that sets up the teams for years Gibbs had a few where we picked up most of the Hogs and other stars of the golden Gibbs 1 eara . Reid had one in 2002, but mostly teams have to build through the years and progressively get better . That has not happened with the Skins for reasons previously mentioned .


It may sound like I am being appolgtic but I am not excusing the FO for ignoring the OL and DL lines but I am aware of the issues around the team and how that had effected the decisions . They didn't have to spend three picks on pass catchers ...they could have spread the wealth but clearly had a philosophy of going off their draft board in terns of value rather than reaching for need alone and from post draft interviews it was also clear that player the FO had targeted had been selected a few picks before .. I am thinking particulary of Philip Merlin and Trevor Laws ( I think) .

I actually think long term this is the philiosophy that wins out and I still applaud the FO for going this route . We didn't sign Thomas, Davis and Kelly for one year they have yet to show these guys are going to be stars but don't judge this draft by this years production alone .I think it is quite interesting when Vinny has a large say in the draft ( which we have only seen twice 2002 and 2008) we see a FO who "Hates draft picks" trade down in the draft to stockpile picks (10 in 2008, 10 in 2002)

The short term thinking that comes with statements like "Well the three pass catchers have contributed zilch this year" I have to wonder how much patience such a person has for OL for example who get beat or DB who give up a touchdown etc ...

The WRs had to be addressed sooner or later and the draft is as good a place as any . You can pick up WR in the FA but top tier WR prospects rarely hit the market most who change teams do so via trades, the Pats for example completely reconstructed their WR corps via trades ..and the odd project like Jabaar Gafney or Dante Stallworth .

As much as people keep talking about the Redskins FO rebuilding the team backwards what they seem to do is focus too much on one area then move on to the next . Like the secondary . We have had a leaky secondary for years even with Champ Bailey and the likes of Deon and Green . Champ leaves So the FO goes out to sure up the secondary, it picks up Shawn Springs, and Wlt Harris Drafts Sean Taylor and then goes on to loose then resgin Fred Smoot drafts Laron Landry and Carlos Rogers and finally brings in Deangelo Hall and uses late picks on Tyron, Horton and Moore . All in the last 4 years .

Before this year we drafted Cliff Russell, Rod Gardner, Taylor Jacobs and Danarian McCants also Tim Alexander and Ethan Howel (both 7th rround choices) ... in the Snyder adminstration, we have taken 1 RB ( not FB) in the last 10 years (Betts) ..so you cannot say not with a straight face that we focus on the skill possitions..we have in some instances devoted half of a draft class to OL and DL, and rightly so as they do make up maybe 20 possitions on the team . We do load up with TE, FB and LBs because that is the core of a special teams unit .. Peirce was a special teams ace before breaking out, so was Marshell.

The pointis you can find an area on the team that is showing a weakness and come up with a reason for it . You can with WR, QB, RB etc . Had we not address WR this year then when ... ? It is easy to anoint blame what is not so easy is sugesting ways out of a problem ... maybe you research could be pointed that way

I think the work in blogs like this are admirable, but OM the thing is you may as well just post a three word post .. our FO sucks ... as from reading your article that looks to be the opinion you start with ...

When you compare our lines with the NFCE be sure to compare how many times their FO have had to change coaches, how many philoposophy changes they have been through and how much disruption this flux causes to player acquisition .

Look at the Skins in 1999-2008 ...
I did. And I found one constant: regardless of coach, regardless of system, they don't draft linemen.

No, I don't think "the FO sucks." Due respect, but if that is what you took from the piece, I'm more inclined to think that's you superimposing your own beliefs than me expressing mine.

The piece is very specific and fact-based. The only conclusion I have drawn (even qualifying it by noting we'll let the facts speak for themselves as we proceed in the research) was that I believe they have failed in one specific area--the line of scrimmage.

I understand the effect regime and system changes have on the kind of players you draft.

I understand the effect poor QB play has on the appearance of how an OL is playing.

I understand certain defensive systems stress the DL occupying lanes and blockers as opposed to pinning it back and attacking the passer.

I understand that the Redskins instead of focusing on the draft have tried to build and maintain their lines with the occasional veteran (Rabach, Kendall, Carter, Taylor) and a host of UDFA and journeymen FA.

I also understand that the Redskins, by a significant margin, draft and develop linemen less than their competition. The numbers are startling.

I also understand that their current batch of starting linemen are not competitive against the NFL's best from other teams. That isn't scientific analysis, that's watching the Redskins get owned in the trenches every time they face a playoff-caliber opponent. If you've seen something different, perhaps that is where we're parting ways.

I also understand that there is perilously little talent in the pipeline behind that current batch of starters.

I started with the hypothesis that the Redskins are getting overmatched badly at the line of scrimmage against playoff-level teams. I'm digging into the data to find out exactly how the Redskins have built those lines, and comparing them to a representative sample of other NFL teams to see if any patterns emerge that shed any light on the subject.

I think I'm finding it in spades, to be honest. But I'll keep plugging along and lay the results out there. If when I'm done I conclude that my initial impressions were misguided and the FO is doing and has done an acceptable job of addressing the line of scrimmage, I'll say so.

If the evidence suggests otherwise, I hope you'll do the same.