Peppers says he wants to explore free agency

Before I forget. If what Smootsmack said has the merrit that I think it has then that's seems like a direct contradiction against Vinny's front for "oh we take the best player available because when you draft for need you get in trouble." What Smoot described sounded more like a "thats our guy" mentality (especially with the infatuation as it relates to Cushing) as well as the idea that they can get this particular running back in the third round. To elaborate it sounds like they already know what they want and they're going along the path of do first, answer questions later.

Maybe I'm wrong but from where I'm sitting this is how the front office's possible "plan" looks.

We could not beat anyone that had won more than 9 games. We had an 8-8 record. We have a good defense. We could have a great defense with one or two elite DL.

I know this statistic - which is based on yardage yielded. Yet, our defense got few sacks and few turnovers and points for their team.

In the NFL you've got to be able to generate turnovers and points on the defense. We could not; nor could not stop the best QB.

This justification is why this team can't improve past 8-9 wins because for a decade we've drafted WR and DB, or used our FA money to chase aged players. Our overall win-loss statistics shows the result of that philosophy regardless of the coaches.

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

Before I forget. If what Smootsmack said has the merrit that I think it has then that's seems like a direct contradiction against Vinny's front for "oh we take the best player available because when you draft for need you get in trouble." What Smoot described sounded more like a "thats our guy" mentality (especially with the infatuation as it relates to Cushing) as well as the idea that they can get this particular running back in the third round. To elaborate it sounds like they already know what they want and they're going along the path of do first, answer questions later.

Maybe I'm wrong but from where I'm sitting this is how the front office's possible "plan" looks.

It's not necessarily a contradiction. Yes they really like Cushing (from what I've heard) and they believe they need a linebacker but they won't necessarily take him if he's there if a better player (regardless of position is there) and they feel they can fill their need for a linebacker later on. It just so happens that they apparently think Cushing will be there at 13 (I don't see why he wouldn't be) and that he is not only a need but also the best player available at that point (assuming other players go as planned).

But it's so early in the process. Next week, approximately, the staff will start to really detail their wish list for free agency. Over the next couple of months as free agency shakes out, they'll get a sense of what they want to accomplish in the draft.

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.I bolded this because it's a very good point, I feel. Sometimes, if poorly talented defenses can stay healthy through the whole year, 4-5 months is just enough time for the talent to bubble to the top, and problems that seemed like they would just make a one-and-done playoff teams, they tend to go away "at the right time". So, I think it's a good point that if you build the offense, the defense can come at the right time, regardless of how much you did/didn't invest in it.

But I have to disagree with the rest of your post. The difference between Arizona's offense and ours was philosophical, not necessarily inefficient. Arizona needed to score points to outpace the defense, while Washington prefered to keep the ball on the ground and speed up the game.

Was Arizona's offense better than ours? Yeah, I think I (and everyone else) would say so. But it's not a good comparision, because Arizona's offense was NOT as good as Atlanta, New York, Miami, when you consider the philosophy and the turnovers. Arizona offense, for most of the year at least, was closer to us then it was to the elite offenses. They still managed to win 9 games though.

I also can't wrap my head around the fact that an average offense would have resulted in a 10+ win season. I mean, you can rank our defense a bunch of different ways, none of them are particularly impressive to me. They are 4th in some rankings, 5th in others, and it's probably the most mediocre 4th or 5th in NFL history.

Not to say that defense wasn't the strength of the team, but it (as you mentioned) was an 8-8 team, one with poor special teams, and an offense that was hardly inept, even if all of our games were low scoring.

I would say if we had a great defense, we would have won 10-11 games by playing ball control offense and improved special teams. As it is, we were decent there, and won 8 games, which is about what I expected considering our pythag stats.

I bolded this because it's a very good point, I feel. Sometimes, if poorly talented defenses can stay healthy through the whole year, 4-5 months is just enough time for the talent to bubble to the top, and problems that seemed like they would just make a one-and-done playoff teams, they tend to go away "at the right time". So, I think it's a good point that if you build the offense, the defense can come at the right time, regardless of how much you did/didn't invest in it.

But I have to disagree with the rest of your post. The difference between Arizona's offense and ours was philosophical, not necessarily inefficient. Arizona needed to score points to outpace the defense, while Washington prefered to keep the ball on the ground and speed up the game.

Was Arizona's offense better than ours? Yeah, I think I (and everyone else) would say so. But it's not a good comparision, because Arizona's offense was NOT as good as Atlanta, New York, Miami, when you consider the philosophy and the turnovers. Arizona offense, for most of the year at least, was closer to us then it was to the elite offenses. They still managed to win 9 games though.

I also can't wrap my head around the fact that an average offense would have resulted in a 10+ win season. I mean, you can rank our defense a bunch of different ways, none of them are particularly impressive to me. They are 4th in some rankings, 5th in others, and it's probably the most mediocre 4th or 5th in NFL history.

Not to say that defense wasn't the strength of the team, but it (as you mentioned) was an 8-8 team, one with poor special teams, and an offense that was hardly inept, even if all of our games were low scoring.

I would say if we had a great defense, we would have won 10-11 games by playing ball control offense and improved special teams. As it is, we were decent there, and won 8 games, which is about what I expected considering our pythag stats.

I just feel that in some games, if we had been just a little bit better offensively, we could have won those games. I feel that in the second half of the season, the offense was unable to take advantage of the few turnovers that we had. In other games, tough stops made by the defense did not result in points when the offense took over. Or the offense could not move the ball in order to run the clock out (although we won that game, this happened during the last Philly game).

Our defense was not great, and I agree with you on that. We did not have the type of defense that Baltimore or Tennessee had, which can carry a team to 11 or 12 wins. However, we did have a good defense that led to 8 wins, while I feel we had an offense bad enough to lose 8 games. Had our bad offense been a little bit better, maybe we could have topped 9 or 10 wins.

There are people here that focus on the defense as a reason for our 8-8 season. And yes, we were probably the worst 4th or 5th ranked defense. However, if it wasn't for this defense, we could have gone worst than 8-8. Yes our defense needs to be addressed and improvements could be made. But let us not forget that major things need to happen with our offense. Otherwise, I don't think the defense can carry this team any longer.

I agree with this scout (wow, I just wrote that?). Trading down, drafting for value, grabbing long term positions first, all good things, actual evaluation of said players: awful bordering on irresponsible.

It's clear that Vinny and co. know what they need to do to be successful. It seems like it might be more of a crapshoot for the current unit then the Gibbs-lead front office.

I'm pretty much basing this on 1) the selection of Devin Thomas, and 2) the lack of evidence to disprove this theory.

Small sample, I know, but that's what I'm getting. They do a lot of things better than the Gibbs-led front office, but tell a good prospect from a bad prospect at the same position does not appear to be one of those things.

Maybe I'm missing the crux of your argument GT but the selection of Rinehardt in the 3rd round seems better evidence of what you say than DT in the 2nd. I kept hearing a lot of teams had Thomas scouted as 2nd round talent, meanwhile CR was scouted i believe as a 5th or 6th rounder. Danny/Vinny tried to add talent to the o-line but just missed (badly) w/ their selection, as CR has shown nothing and evidently lacks the confidence to compete up to this point.

The scout thought Thomas and Kelly were each fine choices for where they were selected in the draft, but that the Redskins didn't need to draft both of them. One or the other should have been fine

I just feel that in some games, if we had been just a little bit better offensively, we could have won those games. I feel that in the second half of the season, the offense was unable to take advantage of the few turnovers that we had. In other games, tough stops made by the defense did not result in points when the offense took over. Or the offense could not move the ball in order to run the clock out (although we won that game, this happened during the last Philly game).

Our defense was not great, and I agree with you on that. We did not have the type of defense that Baltimore or Tennessee had, which can carry a team to 11 or 12 wins. However, we did have a good defense that led to 8 wins, while I feel we had an offense bad enough to lose 8 games. Had our bad offense been a little bit better, maybe we could have topped 9 or 10 wins.

There are people here that focus on the defense as a reason for our 8-8 season. And yes, we were probably the worst 4th or 5th ranked defense. However, if it wasn't for this defense, we could have gone worst than 8-8. Yes our defense needs to be addressed and improvements could be made. But let us not forget that major things need to happen with our offense. Otherwise, I don't think the defense can carry this team any longer.I agree with everything above, especially that the offense really struggled w/o Samuels and a running game.

I think a lot of people see an 11-win defense and a 5 win offense, when in reality, I think it's more like a 7-win offense, and 8-win defense, with poor special teams, and a little bit of luck.

I agree with everything above, especially that the offense really struggled w/o Samuels and a running game.

I think a lot of people see an 11-win defense and a 5 win offense, when in reality, I think it's more like a 7-win offense, and 8-win defense, with poor special teams, and a little bit of luck.

I also think a lot of people had very high expectations of our defense, and compared our defense with Baltimore's or Tennessee's D. And given the talent our defense has and age issues, you are right, we were an 8-win offense. I would hope that our defense would get to the level of Baltimore or Tennessee, but addressing the defense cannot overshadow the issues on offense.

If our offense would have been average, we could have won more than 9 wins. Arizona didn't have a top 10 defense, yet they are in the SB. We had a very good defense, but did not have the offense to compliment it. AZ has a very good offense, and their defense got better and were able to beat all these teams during the playoffs.

could'nt have said it better myself