A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building

I think this is the same problem.
(I excuse the QB position) but I think their conclusion that the offensive struggles were caused by the WR lead them to use the available cap room to address the WR problem.
And I believe addressing the WRs immediately during the initial stages of FA is a further evidence that our OC's focus is clearly on the passing game and that he has a lot of pull.But this is all validation of what we've both been saying most of the last two years. I don't think Kyle is a bad OC either, but the problem is that there are a number of good DCs in this league and the ones that scheme back at Kyle on a drive to drive basis have great success. Rex and Rob Ryan in particular.

Not all teams have good DCs though, and the Shanahan's always come into games well prepared to attack weaknesses, so on the aggregate, we'll never post poor numbers as an offensive unit.

Good defensive teams can find our weaknesses (like the right side of the OL), and a big gamble the Redskins seem to be making is that Robert Griffin will be SO good in our system that you can attack all the weaknesses you want, and it wont matter. Our talent + scheme > your talent plus scheme.

Which when you have the recent history of the Redskins, is high on arrogance and short on substance, but at the end of the season we'll judge them on whether they were right/wrong or successful/unsuccessful, not arrogant or humble.

This isn't true, necessarily, unless you're talking about being the very best of the best. Peyton Manning was probably more valuable to the Colts than Larry Fitzgerald, Nnamdi Asomugha, and Kevin Williams would have been combined.

But if Robert Griffin is the next Peyton Manning, the Colts should be taking him instead of Luck (and you couldn't reasonably suggest that if they knew Griffin would have Peyton Manning's career, that they would take Luck's upside instead). We only have the second pick not the first. One thing we can reasonably say about Luck/Griffin is that while we almost never see two QB prospects this good in the same draft, it's pretty safe to say they won't both be top 5 QBs of all time.

Donovan McNabb was a six time pro bowler. But you had to trade the picks that would eventually become Chris Samuels, Brian Urlacher, and Richard Seymour in order to get McNabb's career, there's no way you'd take the pro bowl quarterback over three game changing players.

In today's NFL? I absolutely would, you're nuts GTripp.

McNabb is a bad example, because Reid's offense had more to to with McNabb's success than McNabb himself. The closest representation of what Griffin could potentially become is Steve Young. Shanahan figures to use him similarly. I would gladly take that over what three first round picks would normally turn into - solid starters.

You're cherry picking historically great first rounders, which is not the correct way to analyze this. The consensus projection on Robert Griffin is a multi-pro bowl franchise caliber QB. So that's not the ceiling, and it's not the floor. It's the expectation. The consensus projection/expectation on first round picks in general is solid starter, with perhaps a pro bowl on occasion. The consensus expectation on first rounders is not the careers of Urlacher, Seymour and Samuels. That's the ceiling on a first round pick.

The appropriate comparison is something like Ronde Barber, Hakeem Nicks, and Jonathan Vilma.

When was the last team to make the Super Bowl without a franchise caliber QB. Matt Hasselbeck with Seattle? Griffin's potential trumps everything.

You think yourself in circles.

I think that we have been rebuilding since the fall of Cerrato. Offense: The year Shanny and Allen arrived we got a QB that our OC beleived in, but lacked the leadership to develop those skills. Without a veteran QB, Shannahan went after someone he thought could fill that role for Grossman (granted, he was DEAD wrong, but shanny is human and mistakes are made by every HC). Not saying it was because of McNabb, but we did see flashes (very tiny flashes) of brilliance from Grossman. Also, Allen was able to turn a few picks into a lot of picks and we now have a young core at offense. We also have three RBs that I would start tomorrow. Before Shanny it was just Portis or Betts and usually one of them was injured. We do not have a "threat" reciever....YET....but we all know that a quality WR rarely develops in his first or sometimes even second season (nor have we had a reliable QB to get the ball there). Offensive line has improved vastly in my opinion and I bet we could still find some pretty good line talent in the 3rd round this year, and thats assuming Allen doesnt find some way to turn the few picks we have into something in the 2nd or maybe more in the 3rd rounds. Deffense: 3-4 has been a bit slow to convert to, but show me a team that it was easy for. We got a steal in the draft last year at DE (good scouting), and we have quality LBs. We have seen better days at CB and S but thats another indication that we are rebuilding. We had a lot of old, mediocre players on our team when Haslett took over, and even then all that was left were players who were drafted specifically for 4-3. Over the past two years, we have built, in my opinion, an above average defense with a young, durable core. I also think it is an indication of the direction we are moving in. Landry fizzled and Otogwe was less than advertised. Just like with the offense, Allen has shown us he can work with what he has as far as picks go and quality can still exist in the 3rd round.

For the argument that we are not rebuilding because we "mortgaged our future" to get RG3 or Luck....This fanbase had many questions for Allen when Cerrato was fired. Where do we go from here? Allen showed us when he "sold the farm" that he is confident of who is available. Also, two QBs of that caliber don't come out of every draft. Getting a new QB in itself is an indication that we are rebuilding, and I think Allen has been trying and continues to try to show the fanbase that when given a few draft picks we can still get the job done in the draft. At this rate, I see the Redskins a force to be reckoned with for many years very soon. This year? Perhaps. It is for sure going to be interesting!

In today's NFL? I absolutely would, you're nuts GTripp.

McNabb is a bad example, because Reid's offense had more to to with McNabb's success than McNabb himself. The closest representation of what Griffin could potentially become is Steve Young. Shanahan figures to use him similarly. I would gladly take that over what three first round picks would normally turn into - solid starters.

You're cherry picking historically great first rounders, which is not the correct way to analyze this. The consensus projection on Robert Griffin is a multi-pro bowl franchise caliber QB. So that's not the ceiling, and it's not the floor. It's the expectation. The consensus projection/expectation on first round picks in general is solid starter, with perhaps a pro bowl on occasion. The consensus expectation on first rounders is not the careers of Urlacher, Seymour and Samuels. That's the ceiling on a first round pick.

The appropriate comparison is something like Ronde Barber, Hakeem Nicks, and Jonathan Vilma.I think you're misinterpreting your own argument (did I just say that? Yeah, I did). I say that because the fallacy that you're accusing me of making is one that you made in the original.

Look, if you're projecting at an league average return on picks, then what we did to get Griffin is WAY less defensible. There is no way to get Steve Young in any draft by trading up. There simply isn't a Hall of Fame quarterback every year, hardly ever is there two in a single class. If there was a Hall of Fame quarterback, assuming perfect information, the Colts would take him first, which is what I pointed out in the first place.

So in part to justify this trade, you have to make the leap of faith that the Colts wouldn't draft the next Steve Young because of football reasons. While a lot of the rhetoric about Griffin and Luck seems to lead in that direction, rhetoric isn't much of an argument. When professionals make their draft boards (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/college_big_board_rankings.html&position=all), it's easier to visualize that while that while the professionals believe there are two or three franchise quarterbacks in this draft, and the Redskins are ensured to get one of the targeted players, it's still INCREDIBLY hard to justify moving up from 6 to 2 to do so.

Obviously, your argument is flawed because we can't just suppose that Griffin is the next Steve Young. But you can argue that if you apply consistent principle, which means that you need to assume that in that paying the opportunity cost to get a guy who could (if everything goes perfect -- including the Colts don't pick him) be the next Steve Young, then you're paying the price of three potential chances for everything to go right and draft potential hall of famers. Otherwise, if you're comparing Steve Young/Robert Griffin to three random Redskins first round selections over the years, it's useful to remember that the Redskins never took Steve Young either.

When was the last team to make the Super Bowl without a franchise caliber QB. Matt Hasselbeck with Seattle? Griffin's potential trumps everything.

You think yourself in circles.The simplest way to answer would be to respond in a question such as "when was the last time the Redskins played in the super bowl with <add any qualifier here.?" Trends are only kept to be broken.

However, I'll exercise my brain a bit and point out that a team was playing in overtime in a championship game with Alex Smith as it's quarterback about two months ago, so I'm guessing they still would have booked the hotel had they been the first team to kick a FG in OT.

I think you're misinterpreting your own argument (did I just say that? Yeah, I did). I say that because the fallacy that you're accusing me of making is one that you made in the original.

Look, if you're projecting at an league average return on picks, then what we did to get Griffin is WAY less defensible. There is no way to get Steve Young in any draft by trading up. There simply isn't a Hall of Fame quarterback every year, hardly ever is there two in a single class. If there was a Hall of Fame quarterback, assuming perfect information, the Colts would take him first, which is what I pointed out in the first place.

So in part to justify this trade, you have to make the leap of faith that the Colts wouldn't draft the next Steve Young because of football reasons. While a lot of the rhetoric about Griffin and Luck seems to lead in that direction, rhetoric isn't much of an argument. When professionals make their draft boards (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/college_big_board_rankings.html&position=all), it's easier to visualize that while that while the professionals believe there are two or three franchise quarterbacks in this draft, and the Redskins are ensured to get one of the targeted players, it's still INCREDIBLY hard to justify moving up from 6 to 2 to do so.

Obviously, your argument is flawed because we can't just suppose that Griffin is the next Steve Young. But you can argue that if you apply consistent principle, which means that you need to assume that in that paying the opportunity cost to get a guy who could (if everything goes perfect -- including the Colts don't pick him) be the next Steve Young, then you're paying the price of three potential chances for everything to go right and draft potential hall of famers. Otherwise, if you're comparing Steve Young/Robert Griffin to three random Redskins first round selections over the years, it's useful to remember that the Redskins never took Steve Young either.

For some reason you're assuming that there can't be two extremely high performing QBs coming out of the same draft. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the likelihood isn't there this year. Step back from the prob and stat and actually analyze these two QB prospects. One (Luck) is projected to be the best coming out since Peyton. Griffin is thought to be right there, to the point where many are asking whether RG3 deserves to go #1. So the Colts will take whichever one they think is best. So just because Luck is being anointed that guy doesn't mean Griffin isn't also projected to be the same. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it can't happen.

Forget Steve Young, I'm sorry I brought him up because it's causing you to miss my point. Here's what I'm trying to say. The expectation of the typical second quarterback taken in a draft is not that of a pro bowler. But this is not your typical second quarterback taken. This is Robert Griffin, who by all accounts, is different. He's deserving of going #1 by a long shot in any year where Andrew Luck is not also available at the same time.

Forget prob and stat GTripp. Analyze the real world situation you find yourself in. This is a unique situation this year, there are two QBs projected for a multi pro bowl level of play. While it would normally be foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for the typical 2nd QB available, it is absolutely not foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for a player who projects like Robert Griffin.

With the rules changing the way they have in recent years, the group-think regarding the value of surrounding talent fades into the oblivion of history. Having a highly accurate QB who avoids sacks and bad plays is just about everything in today's NFL.

I think Kyle (and Mike) are banking on a productive offense fueled by the passing game.
An offense that is either good enough to make the team competitive or good enough to divert attention from the other flaws in the team and buy them more time.

If they don't upgrade the RT postion they're taking a huge risk.
Many great offense plans have been wrecked by lack of pass protection.

For some reason you're assuming that there can't be two extremely high performing QBs coming out of the same draft. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean the likelihood isn't there this year. Step back from the prob and stat and actually analyze these two QB prospects. One (Luck) is projected to be the best coming out since Peyton. Griffin is thought to be right there, to the point where many are asking whether RG3 deserves to go #1. So the Colts will take whichever one they think is best. So just because Luck is being anointed that guy doesn't mean Griffin isn't also projected to be the same. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it can't happen.

Forget Steve Young, I'm sorry I brought him up because it's causing you to miss my point. Here's what I'm trying to say. The expectation of the typical second quarterback taken in a draft is not that of a pro bowler. But this is not your typical second quarterback taken. This is Robert Griffin, who by all accounts, is different. He's deserving of going #1 by a long shot in any year where Andrew Luck is not also available at the same time.

Forget prob and stat GTripp. Analyze the real world situation you find yourself in. This is a unique situation this year, there are two QBs projected for a multi pro bowl level of play. While it would normally be foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for the typical 2nd QB available, it is absolutely not foolhardy to trade 3 first rounders for a player who projects like Robert Griffin.

With the rules changing the way they have in recent years, the group-think regarding the value of surrounding talent fades into the oblivion of history. Having a highly accurate QB who avoids sacks and bad plays is just about everything in today's NFL.There isn't any evidence that surrounding talent is meaningless because the best quarterbacks of the last decade have happened to play with the best surrounding talent. So when those teams (Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, San Diego and recently Atlanta, Green Bay, and New Orleans) win consistently, it's not proving anything about isolated quarterback play. It's just proving that the haves sustain themselves by consistently beating the have nots.

I'm trying to deal in real world problems, but you're spitting on the idea that three or four game changing players might be more valuable in the long run than the second rated QB in this year's draft.

Keep in mind that no one ever said one of those game changing players couldn't be a quarterback or that the Redskins would have to be weak at QB if we didn't make this trade. No one was telling us we couldn't pick a QB in the first round this year. And this in a year where someone did tell us we couldn't use all that cap room we actually had.

Here's the world we live in: the Redskins have three homegrown first rounders on the roster. They have Orakpo, Trent Williams, and Ryan Kerrigan. They will add Robert Griffin to that group. They will not pick in the first round for two years.

That's your core of talent going forward, for better or worse. We will build around that core, because we have no choice. Meanwhile, even the worst drafting teams in the league will hit at about a 50% rate in first round picks, meaning that by the time the 2014 draft gets here, the worst drafting teams in the NFL (who theoretically, super bowl contenders aren't competiting with, they are destroying them on the field) will have drafted four busts in the first round between 2007-2014. They will have just as much homegrown first round talent as the Redskins. Even under Cerrato, that was never the case.

In the real world, the odds are stacked against Griffin for that reason. 2012 is the only year of their rookie contracts where Griffin is likely to have a better supporting cast than Andrew Luck or Ryan Tannehill. The Redskins have every resource available to build him a supporting cast (as do the other teams), but they can no longer compete later because the future isn't a level playing field.

Or to steal a phrase from the Redskins: the future is now.

I want to clarify this because I just re-read my last post and one of the parts I tried to emphasize gets lost in a wall of text.

The Redskins ABSOULTELY can modify Griffin's supporting cast in 2013 and 2014 based on the results and lessons from 2012.

But the CORE is Trent Williams, Kerrigan, and Robert Griffin (and Orakpo if they offer him as second contract). That can't be changed now. The Redskins are fresh out of resources to go in a different direction if the problem they find is that core simply isn't good enough.

Atlanta has the same problem, btw. They have Matt Ryan, Sean Weatherspoon, Julio Jones, Roddy White, and Michael Turner. They also have an excellent supporting cast. They just haven't won much with that core yet. I'm saying the Redskins could build perfectly around this group with their remaining resources, and end up stuck because they realize their core is good, not great.

There isn't any evidence that surrounding talent is meaningless because the best quarterbacks of the last decade have happened to play with the best surrounding talent. So when those teams (Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, San Diego and recently Atlanta, Green Bay, and New Orleans) win consistently, it's not proving anything about isolated quarterback play. It's just proving that the haves sustain themselves by consistently beating the have nots.

I'm trying to deal in real world problems, but you're spitting on the idea that three or four game changing players might be more valuable in the long run than the second rated QB in this year's draft.

Keep in mind that no one ever said one of those game changing players couldn't be a quarterback or that the Redskins would have to be weak at QB if we didn't make this trade. No one was telling us we couldn't pick a QB in the first round this year. And this in a year where someone did tell us we couldn't use all that cap room we actually had.

Here's the world we live in: the Redskins have three homegrown first rounders on the roster. They have Orakpo, Trent Williams, and Ryan Kerrigan. They will add Robert Griffin to that group. They will not pick in the first round for two years.

That's your core of talent going forward, for better or worse. We will build around that core, because we have no choice. Meanwhile, even the worst drafting teams in the league will hit at about a 50% rate in first round picks, meaning that by the time the 2014 draft gets here, the worst drafting teams in the NFL (who theoretically, super bowl contenders aren't competiting with, they are destroying them on the field) will have drafted four busts in the first round between 2007-2014. They will have just as much homegrown first round talent as the Redskins. Even under Cerrato, that was never the case.

In the real world, the odds are stacked against Griffin for that reason. 2012 is the only year of their rookie contracts where Griffin is likely to have a better supporting cast than Andrew Luck or Ryan Tannehill. The Redskins have every resource available to build him a supporting cast (as do the other teams), but they can no longer compete later because the future isn't a level playing field.

Or to steal a phrase from the Redskins: the future is now.

Many good points here, and I concede the point on strong cast and QB being tied at the hip, but one thing carries the day. You can win the SB with a great QB and a strong surrounding cast, but you can't win the SB with a strong surrounding cast minus a great QB. The example of Dilfer doing it no longer applies given the new rules the league is employing.

Yes, we're down a few picks that could mean a great deal to our nucleus. This move is a long term move in that when you think you have a chance to draft that rare, game-changing QB, you do it. Even if it hurts your immediate draft classes. And you keep that QB in house for 10-15 years, and you find a way to take care of the rest later when you've got 1st rounders again.

It all starts with the QB. I don't think Tannehill is that guy. Apparently the Redskins don't either. With Griffin's potential, at least there's hope. With Ryan Tannehill or Rex Grossman or Matt Flynn, the only hope is that we'll be in the right position to draft Barkley next season.

I'll also add that the Redskins clearly were not planning to have $36 million in usable cap space yanked out from under them. If they win that fight, as I expect they will based on a legitimate legal argument, they'll at least get some of that space back in a settlement with the league.

That will allow for additional improvement to the surrounding cast. That helps more next year than it does this year - this issue will take too long to iron out before the free agent pool is depleted.