Football Outsiders Picks Redskins to Make Postseason

The fact we cut Mitchell means we have no player development at all? Sure, whatever

I know.. Anthony Mix caught on really well after he left here..

Mitchell although a fan favorite and pre-season stud was imo a replacement level player. And to say there's no player development isn't accurate because Armstrong seems to fit the mold PF/KR/WR and we're already developing or seeking the fruits of our own developmental WRs now.

It seems logical to me that our WR mix includes our unproven youth/developmental players + veterans as opposed to unproven youth backed up by developmental players.
I'm not going to argue against the fact that holding onto a Cerrato 7th round draft pick probably wasn't going to make people forget about Jerry Rice anytime soon. This team won't have much trouble replacing the four catches Mitchell had last season. Bobby Wade can do that. Likewise, if they lost the 50 catches that Kelly and Thomas combined for last year, well, there's a veteran out there who can go out and replace that production in 2010. Owens = Thomas + Kelly.

And while there's certainly a mix of young and old amongst the receivers, with and without Mitchell (my point wasn't that we're too old at the position overall), I'm under the impression that Anthony Armstrong isn't really going to be given a fair shot to make the team. He's here because he can work with the Brennan/Bartel third team in camp, and work with Terrence Austin to return kicks in the preseason. Perhaps he can beat out that seventh rounder, but I think that if there's even a smidge of doubt, the benefit goes to the draft pick.

You gotta keep in mind we're talking about 1 off-season they Shanahan/Allen inherited the current state of affairs and you can only guess at what they'll do next year so you can't say there's no emphais on development.

Especially since some of the positions you mention have developmental players on the roster now.

WRs- we've already been through Devin/Malcolm are our developmental players then there's also Armstrong (if/when he makes the team).

RB- agreed as yet no developmental prospects; although the backs we have now are argueably better then the developmental prospects from last year

DL-In the 1st year of a new DL scheme its gonna be difficult to have developmental players but the DE position has a player in his prime Haynesworth and 2 relatively young/not old players in Carriker and Golston
NT-No decent developmental prospects

ILB-Blades, Riley and Henson

OLB-Chris Wilson, Alexander, Jarmon, Jackson, Gatewood

DB-Kareem Moore, Tryon, Barnes, WestbrookI really don't think it's outlandish to look at the moves made this offseason and point out that there hasn't been so much as a half hearted attempt to pick up some players who might be useful down the road based on raw physical tools. We opted for a small UDFA class because we brought in A LOT of players from around the league to win jobs in camp this year.

As pointed out by many beside myself, we're not tied at the hip to any of the veterans we signed this year. We can part with every last one of them at the end of the year if we so choose.

I do sense the team is trying to develop Kareem Moore this year...I'm skeptical as to how much he can actually learn beyond picking up a new defense between years two and three, but I think they're trying to get more out of him than Gray/Blache did.

We still have a lot of defensive depth from the Cerrato days, but while I'm hoping to see Perry Riley become the next Fletcher, and Rocky McIntosh to take to and thrive in this defense, and Carter to really excel in a 3-4 OLB role, I still think there's a lot of "starters" and "backups" in Haslett's defense (to say: they aren't really interchangeable). With select exceptions, Haslett will draft his own future starters over the next two years, and not try to turn backups into more than just role players.

However, even finding niches for backups would make them more useful than they have been in the past.

I know.. Anthony Mix caught on really well after he left here..The arena league never saw someone so...tall?

What's particularly stupid about this piece is that he automatically assumes that because we signed a bunch of veteran dudes, that necessarily precludes younger players from making the roster.

If the Galloways and the Vonnie Hollidays don't show in camp that they are worthy of one or two more years in the NFL, then they'll be history. Bringing in Galloway and Bobby Wade is a good way to find out if Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas are capable of stepping up. In their third NFL season, if a direct threat to their job security doesn't get them going, nothing will.

And is he actually serious in suggesting that we'd be better off with a combination of Derek Anderson and Jimmy Clausen instead of Donovan McNabb? You can't go saying shit like that and expect to be taken seriously as a writer. I mean WTF.


What he said!

It just seems completely pointless to complain about the Redskins recent 'player development' practices, which have nothing to do with Shanahan and Allen.

The failures of the previous coaching staff and front office are well documented. But to say that there's now no player development going on in Washington is premature. Allen and Shanahan just got to town. Just because they're trading away picks and bringing in vets doesn't mean they're giving up on younger players. My whole point here is that the arrival of the vets is primarily aimed at motivating the younger players, which forces them to work hard and evolve their game.

You're going to have to wait a year or two before you can pass a judgment on Allen and Shanahan's player development practices. But you know what, ultimately I'm a lot more interested in roster development than player development.

The more the Redskins sign new players to one year deals, the more I'm ok with what they are doing. Keep it short and make 'em prove they are worth a long term deal. (gotta prove it first)

Well, using common sense would work just fine.

No one is putting us ahead of those teams, necessarily, and 9 wins probably isn't going to take the division. But, if we can reach that point, we'd most likely move ahead of somebody, and probably two teams.

I just don't know if the roster is good enough to reach first place in this division yet, which is the same boat that the Giants are in. They, like us, are hoping for rebound years from lots of underachieving veterans. Philly is doing the young thing, again, and according to the FO projections, that puts them on level footing with us, albeit with an arrow pointing up instead of down.

That leaves just Dallas as someone that should, in theory, still be way ahead of us. Their argument that Dallas is going to be the non contender in this division is far from persuasive, IMO, but Dallas builds their team just like we do: good success on first round draft picks and lots of money spent in free agency without much of an eye on player development. Records aside, we've more or less alternated being better and worse than the Cowboys since 2003, so it's not unreasonable for the roles to flip in 2010 and us to beat them twice again.

I think we're at a bunch of disadvantages in Week 1, of course. Dallas is likely to be a much better team that week than later on in the season. Of course, the same could be said about this team.

Anyway, it shouldn't be hard to believe that we're even with Philly and ahead of NYG in projections because neither of those teams has improved much since last year. The gap between us and Dallas was far greater, and so if they fall from first to last, it makes it a lot easier for us to contend for a division title.

I think you could say we're even w/ Philly. That seems like a fair statement. But I'd still say NY and Dallas are ahead of us.

I think you could say we're even w/ Philly. That seems like a fair statement. But I'd still say NY and Dallas are ahead of us.

Why?

If you're not going to substantiate your statements, why bother posting?

I would say the .... and I hate saying it but as a realist I have to... the only team in the division that looks better on paper right now is the Cowboys. BUT they have question marks to, and theirs is all along the offensive line. Their recieving corp , RBs, are better than us. On D I would say we are even, same with the QBs.

Now the Eagles I believe we are ahead of and the Giants I would put us right on par with them.

Of course if our Dline and Oline come out and dominate this year. I put us ahead of all three squads, and give us a great chance to win the division. Remember guys, The Redskins are not the only team in the NFC East who have a beast of a schedule. We all do, and we have a slightly eaiser schedule then the other 3.

I'm not going to argue against the fact that holding onto a Cerrato 7th round draft pick probably wasn't going to make people forget about Jerry Rice anytime soon. This team won't have much trouble replacing the four catches Mitchell had last season. Bobby Wade can do that. Likewise, if they lost the 50 catches that Kelly and Thomas combined for last year, well, there's a veteran out there who can go out and replace that production in 2010. Owens = Thomas + Kelly.

And that's with a trio of 3 sub-par QBs throwing him the ball.
People can diss TO all they want but wouldn't mind seeing him on the roster.

I'm under the impression that Anthony Armstrong isn't really going to be given a fair shot to make the team. He's here because he can work with the Brennan/Bartel third team in camp, and work with Terrence Austin to return kicks in the preseason. Perhaps he can beat out that seventh rounder, but I think that if there's even a smidge of doubt, the benefit goes to the draft pick.

I would agree with if Shanahan wasn't the HC.
If there was ever a coach that will give an UDFA a fair shake its Shanahan.
If Armstrong comes to play he'll make the squad.

I really don't think it's outlandish to look at the moves made this offseason and point out that there hasn't been so much as a half hearted attempt to pick up some players who might be useful down the road based on raw physical tools. We opted for a small UDFA class because we brought in A LOT of players from around the league to win jobs in camp this year.

Maybe so, but i think we brought in a lot of UDFA because Shanahan has found talent their before and we disn't have a lot of draft picks to rebuild/retool.

As pointed out by many beside myself, we're not tied at the hip to any of the veterans we signed this year. We can part with every last one of them at the end of the year if we so choose.

Which makes sense to me because we should be replacing them via the draft with developmental players. Although i think Carriker/Kemo will stick.

I do sense the team is trying to develop Kareem Moore this year...I'm skeptical as to how much he can actually learn beyond picking up a new defense between years two and three, but I think they're trying to get more out of him than Gray/Blache did.

Blache always claimed to try to get Kareem on the field more often.
I think Moore is a developmental player that at a minimum can match the level of play that Doughty/Horton bring to the table.

I still think there's a lot of "starters" and "backups" in Haslett's defense (to say: they aren't really interchangeable). With select exceptions, Haslett will draft his own future starters over the next two years, and not try to turn backups into more than just role players.

I think Chris Wilson and Blades are starting level players given the opportunity. The DEs behind Haynesworth i view as starting caliber players: Carriker, Holiday, Daniels and Golston.

Haslett also seems high on Alexander and i don't think its just coachspeak.

If we focus on DL, NT in particular in the upcoming draft i think our defense can be steady for several years.