How Scouting College Players Has Evolved Under Shanahan

It has seemed like we drafted better later in the draft.. when guys like Campbell and Brown's suggestions were being taken into consideration because they weren't sexy enough picks for Vinny to be concerned with.

I see Tripp is on his Shanahan hate horse again.


Giddy up!!You didn't even read what I wrote, you just assumed this. And I'm glad to see I'm making an impact on your life.

It's not that I was waiting for you to rip Campbell. I was waiting to hear how Cerrato wasn't really all that bad and that Shanahan is just doing the same thing. ;)

It's the same guys. I am no insider and even I had heard how the Skins scouts were a solid to good group as scouts go. From Campbell's statements, however, it seems to me that the lines of communication are much better between Shanahan and the scouts than it ever was between Cerrato and the scouts. Again, I am just a simple minded fan, but, better communication seems like a good thing.Meh. People get weak in the knees when you compare Shanahan and Cerrato.

I just want to make it clear I don't have anything bad to say about the clear lines of communication between GM/Coach and personnel department. I don't really think it's notable though, and am anticipating the fact that I don't think it's newsworthy being construed as being negative. To be quite frank about it, when Cerrato was in charge, you just kind of assumed that there was open communication with the coaching staff and personnel department because it's kind of shocking that you could have drafted as much talent as Vinny did without that communication. That people in any organization would feel marginalized is a fact of life, but that high ranking people would be among the marginalized would never even have crossed my mind.

While it is good to see improvements, none of this will matter until all of this work results in wins for the franchise. I am glad to see the direction the team seems to be heading towards, and things are much better since the days of Cerrato. Still, MS has made a number of questionable calls running the franchise, and he started it all by doing the very thing that represented the flaw that was the previous front office: giving up picks for a washed up pro bowler.

I am not necessarily agreeing with GTripp, but in a way I understand where he is coming from.

So if I'm reading this right it was never really that the scouts under Vinny were bad, but rather they were being held back by Vinny's emphasis on certain positions and giving up draft picks way to easily.

Anyway this article pretty much seals it. The front office is dedicated to building through the draft and building a team much like the Steelers and Patriots. I doubt they trade up for a QB come April.None of what I am going to write is meant to be a defense of Vinny Cerrato.

But remember how in history we are taught that the people who get to write history are the victors/people in power?

If in three years we're reading very well written insider pieces on how much of an organizational disaster Mike Shanahan was and how he limited Raheem Morris and Chris Forester from helping players reach their true potential and how much better of a person and football coach Jon Gruden is, just remember that the history is written by the people in power, and typically at the expense of the disposed.

And if we're not, I am quite happy that Mike Shanahan against all odds got this team to the playoffs.

You didn't even read what I wrote, you just assumed this. And I'm glad to see I'm making an impact on your life.

I read what you said.

At the end of the day, they've pretty much been the same guys for the last five years or so. If they're a good front office now, then they were a good front office before.


No impact on my life except a good laugh every now and then. Keep up the good work. :cheeky-sm

None of what I am going to write is meant to be a defense of Vinny Cerrato.

But remember how in history we are taught that the people who get to write history are the victors/people in power?

If in three years we're reading very well written insider pieces on how much of an organizational disaster Mike Shanahan was and how he limited Raheem Morris and Chris Forester from helping players reach their true potential and how much better of a person and football coach Jon Gruden is, just remember that the history is written by the people in power, and typically at the expense of the disposed.

And if we're not, I am quite happy that Mike Shanahan against all odds got this team to the playoffs.

True. For example, if the Native Americans had won the Indian Wars our team sure as hell wouldn't be named the Redskins.

But history hasn't been unkind to Vinny. He had his chance and he failed.

IMO, Mike Shanahan has used essentially the same scouting staff that Vinny had to achieve better results than Vinny did. For example, all of the Redskins' 2011 draftees, except Jenkins (who was on IR), were active for at least one game in the 2011-2012 season. That's eleven players. Vinny never did anything like that. The Skins also signed a good group of Free Agents in 2011.

I realize that wins and losses are the ultimate proof of competence for a pro football executive and that Mike Shanahan's teams haven't yet won as much as Vinny's teams did. Nevertheless, I believe that, with the personnel we had when MS took over, we were not talented or deep enough to contend. I also believe that we needed to get younger, as a team. MS is currently working to fix these problems which he inherited from Vinny.

With another productive FA period and draft this year, I'm hoping we can start winning and become contenders for years to come.

I am young enough to favor a patient approach, but far too old to believe that what I'm seeing on the field is a poor representation of what I can expect to see on the field in the future.

If Shanahan strings back to back top level draft classes together, I think there will start to be some legitimate evidence to support the voices who believe he will get this thing turned around. I don't think anyone things 2012 is a super bowl or bust year.

But when you look back at 2011 and see the average win percentage of the 16 opponents picking in the top ten range between .505 and .531, and then the Redskins sitting at sixth overall at .470, and lost 11 games against that, and finished with the worst point differential by any Redskins team since 2003 despite playing a schedule of losing teams, its just another year of failed expectations on the ledger. More of the same isn't going to right the ship, they need a different approach.

One of the numerous problems with your line of thinking is that you're tying consistently poor results, as you aptly and correctly describe, with a consistent approach, which is just wrong.

The approach to the draft has changed drastically. Look at the sheer number of draft picks selected last April. Under Cerrato the Redskins were lucky if they made 12 picks over the course of two years.

Yes the Redskins lost games this year, but there's no denying the influx of young talent on the roster. Vinny brought us some terrible picks; Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly to name just a few. But it was the picks that weren't made that dragged us into the dregs; he ignored the trenches. Shanahan's first pick as Redskins' boss addressed that, but with so few quality linemen on the team it's no wonder it's taking the team a while.

The primary reason the team was so crappy this year was the quarterback position. We all know this. But that has NOTHING to do with the Redskins' approach in the draft. Last year they were wise not to reach for a QB who didn't have Franchise Solution written all over him, instead trading down and adding depth.

Their approach was to find a QB and build depth at every position through the draft. They didn't find the QB, so they built depth. The approach is sound, they'll go through the same process this year: find the QB, build more depth. Stating that approach needs to change seems to ignore the last 10 years of recent Redskins history.

I'd take out the 12 picks over two years line because it's Cerratto did actually make several picks the two years he was in charge.

Otherwise, I agree.

I'd take out the 12 picks over two years line because it's Cerratto did actually make several picks the two years he was in charge.

Otherwise, I agree.

Granted, he did trade down and acquire those 2nd rounders, in particular. Too bad on two out of the three (Thomas, Kelly) he didn't listen to Scott Campbell.