Football Outsiders Picks Redskins to Make Postseason

The faulty premise in his argument is that we'd have to endure some sort of a "loser's curse" if we made the playoffs, caused by the fact that Snyder likes to jump into our business when the future appears bright.

I think he's wrong: I doubt Dan Snyder cares about the day to day operation of the team. However, Shanahan more or less has the same track record, so that, in my opinion, might be what gets us.

But we had no picks, so the only option we had was free agency. And beyond, McNabb, who else have we signed who is gonna cost us arm and leg? Also all these vets probably won't get long term deals. We will have to fully rebuild at one point.

Pretty poor logic to deem Galloway a "vintage" Redskins' signing. We aren't overpaying and we are bringing in cheap competition.

On a personal note, I am unsold on our positioning as the 1a. team in the division to Philly's 1. Their Dallas projection is built on the back of a horrid projection for their offensive line depth and age, but it seems to me that even though that probably will be a banged-up, terrible disgrace of an offensive line, their defense has a lot more upside than that projection allows for, and given Romo's ability to make the first guy miss consistently, I don't see a bottom ten unit on that side of the ball until Jon Kitna takes the field.

If Dallas jumps to the top of the projection, we go from prohibitive favorite to a very fringe playoff contender, in the same boat as Philly and New Orleans -- which is tough competition, plus we'll need to hold as many tiebreakers as possible against Minnesota/Chicago/Green Bay.

I agree with your conclusions.

Which, of course, is Tanier's main point: if Galloway and Holliday are anything more than one-year roster fillers that do a little bit of pushing in camp and a lot of scout team work, then they will likely enter 2011 as the best of a bunch of bad options for a team desperately trying to hold on to a singular playoff berth while fighting off the same effects of age that the early decade Raiders had to.

But that wouldn't be a function of the decision to go out and get Galloway this year, that would be a function of finding out that Devin Thomas just flat out sucks.

It's just we'd learn that this year instead of next. Tanier is questioning the decision making of Shanahan and the front office, suggesting that bringing in these vets for the quick fix is more of the same.

It's not at all. It's partly designed to find out about the current roster sooner rather than later.

So this guy has us better than the Giants and Dallas???? Um I don't think so. Right now those teams are better than we are. End of discussion.

So this guy has us better than the Giants and Dallas???? Um I don't think so. Right now those teams are better than we are. End of discussion.You know, you make a great point. Very well supported.

But that wouldn't be a function of the decision to go out and get Galloway this year, that would be a function of finding out that Devin Thomas just flat out sucks.

It's just we'd learn that this year instead of next. Tanier is questioning the decision making of Shanahan and the front office, suggesting that bringing in these vets for the quick fix is more of the same.

It's not at all. It's partly designed to find out about the current roster sooner rather than later.Well, yeah. It's not like this is a new technique to ShanAllen. Gibbs and Saunders did this too. Vinny didn't because, well, Vinny didn't do a a lot of things that common sense suggested he should.

If you look at our roster right now, there's a very small number of undrafted rookies compared to other teams. Those spots of "players likely to be released anyway" have been given to veteran players. So maybe Galloway gets cut so we can give a roster spot to...Mike Furrey, or someone.

In other words, while our competitors might be cutting their low cost vets in camp for younger bit players, we're going to be picking and choosing between a bunch of unwanted players to fill out our roster. Theoretically, that's a complete lack of depth.

None of that means that we won't find some good players somewhere, even if the young players we have aren't worth our time. I don't think Shanahan is adverse to cutting Vinny draft picks gone wrong. There is, however, a shockingly small amount of player development going on with youth of any type, and given that there's no mid round draft picks next year, that's where I think the pessimism is justified.

Carlos Rogers isn't young anymore and Campbell's gone. That was the 05 draft. Rocky McIntosh has been shopped and may not be a scheme fit. He, Doughty, and Golston are the 06 draft. Landry is the 07 draft. Then Kelly, Thomas, Davis, Tryon and Rinehart in 08, and Orakpo/Barnes in 09. All we've gotten in development of that group is a stud edge rusher, a nickel corner (not counting Rogers, who is 29, and a UFA in 2011), a TE prospect, whatever Landry is these days, and a bunch of guys who could be replaced by veterans and we wouldn't miss them.

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate:

Let's say that Galloway and Vonnie Holliday perform well in camp, displace guys like Thomas and Carriker, and help us fulfill a 9 or 10 win projection and make the postseason.

It's March 2011: what do you do with the receiver and DE positions?

Well, we've already traded away our 2011 3rd rounder.........twice! So we've got to hit it in another round. That's if there is no lock out. Has anyone seen my keys?

I agree with your conclusions.

Which, of course, is Tanier's main point: if Galloway and Holliday are anything more than one-year roster fillers that do a little bit of pushing in camp and a lot of scout team work, then they will likely enter 2011 as the best of a bunch of bad options for a team desperately trying to hold on to a singular playoff berth while fighting off the same effects of age that the early decade Raiders had to.

Except he really didn't say "if," he essentially said "when." And at this point things are not that certain. If the young guys end up taking the roster spots, then Tanier's argument is deeply flawed.