Cooley put on IR

Playmakers are usually the most technically sound players of their position. Ed Reed probably studies a ton of film to diagnose the play and then make his interceptions. Darelle Revis isn't a shutdown corner without his positioning and other coverage skills. Peyton Manning can diagnose defenses better than most other QBs.

What about T.O. is his heyday? It is hard to argue that he wasn't a playmaker. It is also hard to argue that he was "technically sound." And he is just one example.

What about T.O. is his heyday? It is hard to argue that he wasn't a playmaker. It is also hard to argue that he was "technically sound." And he is just one example.

I said "usually", hence I can escape anyone bringing up exceptions to the rule like T.O. ;)

The bolded point is THE point. Playmakers are great but only if an offense, or defense, can - in all other facets- at least keep an opposing teams on an even keel. Much like we hoped RK would allow Orakpo more freedom to blitz. Playmakers still, generally, need a solid team in order for their abilities to shine through, otherwise opponents zero in, and can prevent them from making plays.

See, we always hear that our team has a lot of solid, but not spectacular players. At this point, I'd say our offensive line is getting to be solid, but not star-studded by any means.

I would also submit that we have *solid* running backs. Nothing particularly special to be sure. QBs and wide receivers, -- that's where we have problems.

Defensively, Landry, Hall, Otogwe, Carriker, Bowen, Kerrigan, Rak, are all "solid" players -- not necessarily perennial Pro Bowlers, and not guys that will show up on a box of Wheaties. But guys who are competent, know their positions, and can basically be counted on to perform consistently.

My point is, we don't have a set of players that take everybody else to the next level. The thing that separates the winners from the losers in this league are the teams that are able to collect the most playmakers. We don't have those guys and it shows.

See, we always hear that our team has a lot of solid, but not spectacular players. At this point, I'd say our offensive line is getting to be solid, but not star-studded by any means.

I would also submit that we have *solid* running backs. Nothing particularly special to be sure. QBs and wide receivers, -- that's where we have problems.

Defensively, Landry, Hall, Otogwe, Carriker, Bowen, Kerrigan, Rak, are all "solid" players -- not necessarily perennial Pro Bowlers, and not guys that will show up on a box of Wheaties. But guys who are competent, know their positions, and can basically be counted on to perform consistently.

My point is, we don't have a set of players that take everybody else to the next level. The thing that separates the winners from the losers in this league are the teams that are able to collect the most playmakers. We don't have those guys and it shows.

We are just getting to a point of solid players. That had to be the first focus for MS/BA. Let's give them another draft (maybe two) and real FA period and see what we can get.. seems to me like MS and KS both seemed to know how to find playmakers in their last stints.

We are just getting to a point of solid players. That had to be the first focus for MS/BA. Let's give them another draft (maybe two) and real FA period and see what we can get.. seems to me like MS and KS both seemed to know how to find playmakers in their last stints.

Players comes haphazardly to a team. Lesser, "solid" players should not be taken in favor of players with potential to become great simply because the team sucks. Otherwise, the Lions were morons for drafting Ndamukong Suh at #2 because they didn't have enough solid players on their team.

Different, era. Different coachin style.
Really? How has quality player aquisition, chemistry changed? Not to mention quality coaching?

Really? How has quality player aquisition, chemistry changed? Not to mention quality coaching?

Playmaker is a term orginally from soccer used to describe players who score a lot or help their team score a lot. Since football has different players playing defense and offense, the term needs to be adapted just a little bit to fit on both sides of the ball. The Hogs were playmakers. When a marginal running back puts up a 200+ yard performance in the Super Bowl, that means the OL were playmakers that game. Drafting to find playmakers has been around since the beginning of football. Only the Redskins eschewed the draft and preferred to try and find playmakers primarily through free agency.

The point is....AND you accentuated it nicely. The Skins on those teams had guys that could play, but even at the time were not considered Superstars of the game, as in not necessary to win SB's??
YES, the Hogs were well known as a unit but very few people (and many fans) could have named any player on that line....or now.
BTW...please never refer to Soccer again for any reason on a Redskin forum...thanx for that.

Players comes haphazardly to a team. Lesser, "solid" players should not be taken in favor of players with potential to become great simply because the team sucks. Otherwise, the Lions were morons for drafting Ndamukong Suh at #2 because they didn't have enough solid players on their team.

At the same time you don't neglect core needs for a shot in the dark player. Show me where in the past two drafts we specifically passed up an available "playmaker" for a substantially lesser player. Any discussion of drafts before then simply seems fruitless as everyone here agrees those drafts were sad in judgement at this point . Also show me a playmaker FA we should have gotten, without breaking the bank a la AH. Even your Suh example is skewed because the lions took the best player in the draft for an area that they needed considerable upgrading at. Basically that is a win/win for their team, in other words they did not neglect a core need for a playmaker. My counter to that would be both atlanta, getting JJ but neglecting a woeful defense, and the cowboys getting Dez Bryant, but neglecting their line in that draft.

Look a team needs playmakers, we definitely need some but you can't neglect your core, hopefully in the next two seasons we see talent across the board rise and have a few players truly step up to that next level. Like you said players don't come haphazardly, and they also, generally, don't come en masse, that's why its re building because its a step by step process and it takes time, not one and a half offseasons.

At the same time you don't neglect core needs for a shot in the dark player. Show me where in the past two drafts we specifically passed up an available "playmaker" for a substantially lesser player. Any discussion of drafts before then simply seems fruitless as everyone here agrees those drafts were sad in judgement at this point . Also show me a playmaker FA we should have gotten, without breaking the bank a la AH. Even your Suh example is skewed because the lions took the best player in the draft for an area that they needed considerable upgrading at. Basically that is a win/win for their team, in other words they did not neglect a core need for a playmaker. My counter to that would be both atlanta, getting JJ but neglecting a woeful defense, and the cowboys getting Dez Bryant, but neglecting their line in that draft.

Look a team needs playmakers, we definitely need some but you can't neglect your core, hopefully in the next two seasons we see talent across the board rise and have a few players truly step up to that next level. Like you said players don't come haphazardly, and they also, generally, don't come en masse, that's why its re building because its a step by step process and it takes time, not one and a half offseasons.We have taken shots at playmakers already. I define playmakers as guys who make a huge impact in helping scoring on O or preventing scores on D. Reputation, etc has no relevance. It's what they do that matters.

Core players are playmakers. Brian Orakpo, Ryan Kerrigan, and Trent Williams are not here to just be solid. They're here to be playing up to their potential, which is on par with some Pro Bowlers and criminally underrated good players like Justin Smith, aka be playmakers. They're here to prove they should be anchoring us for the next 5-10 years. They're the ones getting the huge contracts if they pan out, just like Clay Matthews and Jason Pierre-Paul are well on their way to getting.

We have taken consistently taken shots on potential playmakers in the first round in our recent history, even Carlos Rogers and Jason Campbell were shots at playmakers. JC was supposed to be Rypien and Doug Williams reincarnated, and to Joe Gibbs, that meant Super Bowl-caliber.

What Atlanta passed up were likely two more "risky" potential playmakers and a special teamer for one "sure thing" offensive player. Of course, Jones is not risk-free AT ALL, but they deemed him more necessary than what they expected to grab with the picks they had.