Football Outsiders Picks Redskins to Make Postseason

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

Well I think he could have doubled the essay size and wrote something that looked at the other side of the Redskins plight if things start to unexpectedly turn upward in the player development category, and then his piece probably wouldn't have come off on such a negative slant.

The biggest problems are that 1) the pure quantity of young talent isn't that high because of traded draft choices and also because of Vinny's curious tendency to spend mid and late round picks on special teams projects who end up not being able to keep Byron freakin Westbrook off the roster, and 2) the young talent that was drafted under Vinny (outside of Orakpo) appears unlikely to develop. There's still time, of course. It's just not very promising, which is why I don't have my faith invested in the outcome of Devin Thomas/Malcolm Kelly/Chad Rinehart/Kevin Barnes anymore. We could theoretically still get four quality starters from that group. If we got two quality starters, everyone on the board would take that average return from those two 2s and two 3s.

I think it's likely we'll get just one of the four: Kelly.

Barnes and Rinehart are blocked by vets right now (Buchanon and Artis Hicks) which is why I say the team appears uninterested in developing talent when it's so easy to sign a cheap vet and ignore that you ever used a draft choice at the position. Thomas and Kelly are still blocked by the promise of each other, but at least no longer by Randle El. If one or the other can play, we will certainly know by year's end.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Honestly, how can they not be more successful than Vinny??

I am an unabashed Bruce Allen fan, but I would have paired his veteran savvy and considerable job security with a younger coach who would have been much more likely to oversee a new age of player development. Shanahan is going to try to win a super bowl with McNabb, and probably will be unsuccessful, and then probably settle in to the same Gruden/Allen path of not choosing a quarterback to succeed McNabb, but rather having a little competition every year, and maintaining high roster turnover.

It really did work in Tampa for awhile, but they also preyed on a lot of wrongheaded organizations to make the postseason every year. Atlanta and New Orleans prior to 2006 had no direction. In the NFC East, I don't think the high-turnover route is going to produce a lot of success. Those first place finishes in Tampa would have been second or third place finishes in a more competitive division.

###

Vinny's roster was a lot deeper at most positions than recent Redskins rosters, including the current one. Admittedly, most of the depth was concentrated on defense, and the guy running that operation wouldn't have been able to figure out how to use guys that weren't starters effectively, but our defense has been remarkably healthy since the 2006 disaster. We really needed the depth on offense, and had it at just one position where it was needed: running back. The starting receivers were as bad as the backups, and the OL had no depth whatsoever, which is where Vinny was intentionally cutting corners.

[GTripp0012]

The Seattle chapter in FOA 2010 brought up a great point: Tim Ruskell took the exact same risk with Walter Jones that Vinny took with Chris Samuels, and got almost identical negative results, including a firing. The only real difference between our offense last year and Seattle's was quarterback play, where Campbell substancially outperformed Hasselbeck with a nearly identical supporting cast (another reason why QB age matters). Either way, neither team won six games, and both personnel guys were fired for their risks-gone-bad.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Seattle chapter in FOA 2010 brought up a great point: Tim Ruskell took the exact same risk with Walter Jones that Vinny took with Chris Samuels, and got almost identical negative results, including a firing. The only real difference between our offense last year and Seattle's was quarterback play, where Campbell substancially outperformed Hasselbeck with a nearly identical supporting cast (another reason why QB age matters). Either way, neither team won six games, and both personnel guys were fired for their risks-gone-bad.

What evidence is there to support the notion that Hasselbeck underperformed because of his age?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You know, you make a great point. Very well supported.

LOL.....Look Dallas will win some games but in the end will choke ...Romo always does.As for the Giants ....Offensively QB ..Eli has gotten better and I think our young wide recievers are our best unit on O, the O line has gotten old fast but with healthy running backs which they did not have at all last year can be much better.
Defensively ......health is the question,if the Giants stay healthy on D...it's a very good unit .My own opinion is our biggest concern is MLBer will one of the rookies step up or will Goff play better with a healthy D line in front of him?Our DB's all took to many hits last year with the front 7 being decimated with the addition of Rolle at safety and a healthy front 7...the Giants can make some noise in the playoffs this year,if not Coughlin is gone and Bill Cowher will be the next coach of the NY Giants.

I try to stay away from predictions ...to many posibilties can change things...injuries and such but as of now this is how I see things shaping up.........

1) Giants...win divison
2)Skins...Wild card
3)Cowboys Wild card
4) Eagles

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Mason is a replacement level player with no developmental upside, so he's probably not a good example for me, but Mitchell is an excellent example of the fact that there's absolutely no player development going on in Washington.

Marko was cut by the Lions. He couldn't beat out Northcutt or Byrant Johnson over there. If he really had any upside, he would have shown it by now.

[SmootSmack]

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

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

McNabb wasn't better in Philly than Mark Brunell was in Jacksonville. They're pretty similar players, overall............While you can't say that McNabb is better than Brunell when they came over, he might very well turn out to be a better Redskins quarterback.

I think you can most certainly can say that McNabb is better then Brunell was in Jax we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll take McNabbs win percentage, production, division titles, playoffs appearances and pro-bowls anyday.

We don't know anything about the moves that will be made for next year's team, only that they will be numerous, and the team is already short two draft picks, and is looking into some sort of Haynesworth-Jackson swap, possibly costing a third draft pick. A lot of it will depend on how the team does this year...the better they perform in 2010, the more likely they are to be veteran-laden in 2011....I don't want to rule out some shrewd FA pickups, like they did in 2004 with Springs, Washington, and Griffin, but open player markets are getting more barren by the year, and the new CBA could restrict player movement even more.

I don't neccesarily disagree with what you're saying, but its still speculation at this point and Tainer goes on like it a proven fact.

Mason is a replacement level player with no developmental upside, so he's probably not a good example for me, but Mitchell is an excellent example of the fact that there's absolutely no player development going on in Washington.....we have two third year players for youth who are already pretty developed (at least as close to their primes as we can reasonably expect), so there's no reason to have even more young depth at the position. We instead must "push" Thomas/Kelly to perform now. Now, now, now. We didn't replace Mitchell with a more scheme-friendly developmental prospect, rather, we just scrapped the idea of player development at the position.

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.

Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen both fall heavily on the nature side of the nature/nurture NFL talent continuum. Both have failed mightily in the draft with "raw" prospects, and do much better when selecting older draft eligible types who can learn on the field.

Its debateable b/c Shanahan has success with both, bottom line for me is the guy can develop offensive talent young or veteran. (Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Tony Scheffler, Peyton Hillis, Ryan Clady...Terrel Davis, Shanon Sharpe, Rod Smith)

We certainly are going to press Forester's ability to turn some late round picks into serviceable starting lineman -- at least one should emerge on the 2011 OL.

On the OL Shanahan likes talented players be it from the draft or FA i'm sure if the talent pool is barren Forester will be given the personelle he needs. But, Shanahan has a history of raising the performance level of his players, which is a sign of a good coaching.

But at WR/RB/DL/LB/DB, there's no emphasis on development. Which means vets instead of unproven rookies over the next four years.

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, Westbrook

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

What evidence is there to support the notion that Hasselbeck underperformed because of his age?

Well, in Hasselbeck's case, age decline isn't the only reason he hasn't performed at pro bowl level the last two seasons: his cast has declined around him, and the system has changed on him -- he did one thing for so long that he became a system player of sorts -- but certainly the age 35 version isn't anything remotely resembling the age 32 version.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

More like there's no player development and also we happened to cut Mitchell -- more independent than dependent -- but I guess if you want to say that we don't actually need to keep young players on the offensive side of the roster to develop players, that's okay with me.

Hey, maybe Colt Brennan will win the starting QB job in camp, in the spirit of "competition". He's young. Sort of.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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, Westbrook

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

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

The arena league never saw someone so...tall?

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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!

[Schneed10]

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.