[QUOTE=NYCskinfan82;903437][ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpZGV_m0twg]The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Official Theatrical Trailer - YouTube[/ame][/QUOTE]

If you really think about that movie it is just Forest Gump backwards.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=Chief X_Phackter;903380]Why?[/quote]Because if everybody says rebuilding it suggests a problem in the way that I presented the evidence. I was trying to evaluate, not persuade.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;903393]You got me with the RBs, but Hankerson is still a question mark as a potential starter. The fact that we acquired Garcon and Morgan should have us fans thinking about what the coaches think about Hankerson. Riley and Jenkins are good, but we do need a few guys that can at least contend for Pro Bow honors. Those guys would just be able to make it as an average starter. I know there are gems to be found Ruh, and there are first round busts, but for one year we start off with a third round pick. I just hope our scouts earn their money. They are going to have to be the ones to pick up the slack with the RG III deal.[/quote]

I think there is cause to be concerned, but you have to understand we have a lot of young players to work with right now. Sure it sucks to not have first round talent, but if we are able to a.) develop the young talent we have right now and b.) continue our ability to get mid-round players that can start, I think we will be alright.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=30gut;903388]Imo, when your HC is also your GM the FO will sometimes operate at cross purposes.
The resulting schizophrenic personnel decisions can impede the team building process.
That doesn't mean that the team cannot be successful.
I've always felt the saving grace for Mike Shanahan the GM is the acumen of Mike Shanahan the coach.
What I've heard and observed from Mike Shanahan suggest to me that like most coaches, he will always believe any team that he coaches can win now.

or the more direct answer: [B][I]not[/I][/B] rebuilding[/quote]I agree, though I think if the team had gotten pre-2006 Mike Shanahan instead of what we've had on the sideline the last two years, its very possible (maybe probable) that we'd have at least a winning season with him.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

What year is it that we are starting with a 3rd round pick? Did we become New Orleans overnight?

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=Paintrain;903383]To answer the final question, yes, I think there is a plan and has been since 2010. 2010 evaluate the roster and start the 3-4 transition, try to win with core players plus a couple of additions. 2011 focus on building a playoff defense through the draft and free agency. 2012 focus on building a playoff offense, focusing on skill positions (that's why I don't think an early pick on a RB is out of the question) and specify areas of need. The cap penalties probably derailed our full plan this offseason but we targeted players to address one of our major shortcomings in recent years, team speed and explosive players.[/quote]How would you rectify this outline with Shanahan's belief that he had already built a playoff offense his first two years here, and then obviously the talent upgrades from the 2012 draft?

Your outline seems to suggest that multiple issues have been targeted then solved, but I'm not even sure the Redskins ever correctly identified what was causing the losing. It seems like after the failure in 2010, they just attributed it to being too old/prone to injury/lacking in depth to compete in the modern NFL. So then they overhauled the roster with younger players, and when that didn't solve the problems, they attributed it again to injury.

I suppose its possible that the attribution is correct and that the annual injury problem was fixed by the 2011 (and 2012) youth injection, and that last years continuation of pretty much every problem from the last eight years was a coincidence. It's at least possible that Mike Shanahan is the genius and we're the fools who didn't see that he fixed every problem with the franchise during a 5-11 season. But on the other side of the coin is the chance that Shanahan was never right about where the problems were, and that youth can't cure the problems with the training staff and the coaching staff.

Am I wrong in that suggesting that any plan that follows the pattern that you suggest here necessarily requires that Mike Shanahan understood most or all the issues with the team from the beginning? But then you go to mid-season last year and post-2011 and comments at least suggest that he was off (by a lot) in his assumptions (and willing to admit that -- to a degree).

I think your plan to rebuild the franchise would be very rational in hindsight, I just don't think it's particularly relevant to what has actually occurred with the Redskins the last two years.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

I like to think that we aren't rebuilding just doing what's needed to compete. Year 1 of Shanny we thought we could plug in some vets and an established qb then we'll win, it didn't happen. He found quickly that age was the issue and a culture change was needed badly.
2nd year we used the uncapped year to clean house and get younger. The quality of QB was not available through freeagency. The draft was not an option do to the lockout. Therefore we traded down, acquired picks and focused on the defense getting 3-4 players and WR's. Now we have a decent defense. The secondary regressed and we need more production from the wideout position. It was nessesary to get a blue chip qb. We didn't tank the season and Barkley stayed for his senior year so the only option was trading up.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=diehardskin2982;903465]I like to think that we aren't rebuilding just doing what's needed to compete. Year 1 of Shanny we thought we could plug in some vets and an established qb then we'll win, it didn't happen. He found quickly that age was the issue and a culture change was needed badly.
2nd year we used the uncapped year to clean house and get younger. The quality of QB was not available through freeagency. The draft was not an option do to the lockout. Therefore we traded down, acquired picks and focused on the defense getting 3-4 players and WR's. Now we have a decent defense. The secondary regressed and we need more production from the wideout position. It was nessesary to get a blue chip qb. We didn't tank the season and Barkley stayed for his senior year so the only option was trading up.[/quote]

Good assessment. The defense is strong enough to be playoff caliber and the offense just needs a few more play makers. We gained that through free agency. Although the offensive line is in question, I like our O line. With the addition of either RG3 or Luck, that would put the Redskins into a position to greatly improve and be highly competitive.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

I don't understand why people talk about rebuilding in the NFL. No team in the NFL rebuilds. You have a plan set out for the franchise and putting the right pieces in place if that be long term or short is how you win.

Do we have young players? Yes, but many draft picks in the past 5-7 years that are not even 30 have been traded, released etc.

There is no such thing as rebuilding in the NFL.

Rebuilding, not rebuilding. It's not an important question. The real question is did we get better or worse than we were last season and have we positioned ourselves for long term success.

I think we will miss Landry more than people think even considering his injuries. Fletch is most likely going to get old in a hurry. Not loving the secondary or the depth at several spots most notably ol. Is RG3 going to be any better in his rookie season than the beck/grossman combo?

On the flip side RG3 has given us a potential stud QB. Jenkins should be back. Helu, hank and the other young guys will get a full offseason under their belts.

Personally, I'm renewing my Sunday ticket package with the hopes of winning 6-7 games, being competitive in another 6-7 games, and drinking heavily in the 2-4 games we will get blown out due to RG3 having a rookie QB game.

I'm also renewing because I think in three years we can be really special.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=Paintrain;903404]Yeah, not like we're getting arguably the best prospect in the draft but we won't have a pick in the 2nd round!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! The horror, the shame, the soul piercing agony![/quote]

lololololololololol!!

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

I don't really think there needs to be a clear-cut distinction between "rebuilding" and trying to "win now". I think quite simply, the team is trying to improve. And the leadership knows that there are still a lot of holes.

Trading the picks for Griffin was a wise move from both the immediate future perspective and the long term perspective. A top notch franchise quarterback will deliver more win shares over the next 10 to 15 years than three non-QB first round picks would. And the likelihood of Griffin not panning out is about the same as the three picks it took to get him going bust, so downside risk does not come into the equation in my mind.

Aside from that, you simply fill every hole you can with young players, whenever you can. Who cares whether it's rebuilding or what. Just get better.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903456]I agree, though I think if the team had gotten pre-2006 Mike Shanahan instead of what we've had on the sideline the last two years, its very possible (maybe probable) that we'd have at least a winning season with him.[/quote]Good point that leads to a whole other discussion about the differences between Kyle and Mike as playcallers that most turn a blind eye towards.

As a huge fan of the Mike Shanahan's Denver WCO, I feel confident in saying that Kyle and Mike, although they coach in the same system, same scheme, are fundamentally different playcallers.

Not to say that Kyle is a bad playcaller, I don't think he is, but for my money I have very little doubt that Mike Shanahan's run centered focus as the primary playcaller would have netted in different on the field results.

(Flame suit on) I know it pointless to mention but I will always wonder whether the conflict between Kyle and McNabb would have occured between Mike and McNabb, I don't think it would've.
But, I digress....

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903463]How would you rectify this outline with Shanahan's belief that he had already built a playoff offense his first two years here, and then obviously the talent upgrades from the 2012 draft?[/quote]

Mendacity, son, mendacity! Mr. Mike simply didn't tell us the truth. He knew he didn't have a playoff offense, just like he knew that Grossman and Beck couldn't get the job done at QB.

You seem to think that Mike Shanahan lacks the ability to realistically evaluate the talent on his team. I don't. I just think that he doesn't mind telling a few fibs about what he thinks of the talent level on his team.

For some reason I don't understand, the entire Redskins management team refuses to admit that they are rebuilding.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

rebuilding is kind of a myth. we've been "rebuilding" since when? norv? gibbs I?

after 3-4 years you start losing as many players as you get due to age/expiring contracts/etc. navigating might be a better word.

this year, for example. I expect our offense to be better, but our secondary and LB corp may be worse. that's more like a trade off than an upgrade, but those are the choices you make and you just hope that overall you've done enough to win more games. I think RGIII will be huge in that regard, maybe even in year 1 and 2, but that, talent for dollar, garcon and morgan are a bit borderline.

It's easy to upgrade your top 53 with sub $2mill/year deals. upgrading the top 22 usually takes real money, but it's important to pick correctly there, since the contracts kind of marry you to those players. when you pick incorrectly (mcnabb/haynesworth/etc etc) it really stunts the team, since you've waste time developing players and cap space not signing guys that could actually help you win. It's MUCH better to not sign someone over giving big money to the wrong guy. you can't win via free agency with a 50% hit rate (which is what vinny had). BA has done better on that front.

going foward there's only a couple bleh contracts left, and they're immediately disposable (hall etc) without big cap penalties for the most part (stupid jamal brown).

anyways, back the the question. I think shanny came i and did the house cleaning bit, wasted 2 years with the wrong QBs, and now I expect a solid season... if RGIII had been here two years ago, I'd expect playoffs now, but the rookie QB learning curve can be harsh, so that tempers things. I don't really buy rebuilding as a concept, but I think once you've got the right QB you can't really be considered rebuilding, only competing for the postseason (and if you're not, it's either the wrong QB or a mismanaged roster/player aquisition system).

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

I wouldn't call what the Redskins did at the quarterback position last season rebuilding with QB being the most important position on the field. Mike Shanahan did no better than guessing. Both Beck and Grossman were below average in terms and of play, and Shanahan went with both of them and we know how awfully that turned out. With veteran leadership already on the roster, we had a good draft last spring in conjunction with that. NFL teams don't rebuild in this era like in the past. Teams just get better at the positions they need to, and improve until they are contenders and champions.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;903377]If RGIII lives up to the number 2 pick? This team won't rebuild for long[/quote]

this trade was a bargain you will see that in the years ahead

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

I think we are a victim of circumstance in terms of the secondary because of the cap penalty. Now, we are hoping that the front 5 will create enough pressure to make up for the decline in the secondary.

RG3 is going to be 100x better Grossman and Beck last season. Can you imagine the bootleg with a 4.37 fast QB that can throw an accurate deep arm. I think we will lead the league in plays for over 20 yards per catch and we'll have the number 1 rushing offense. The defense will struggle because they will have to deal with more desperate offenses.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

Who Knows? I'm tired of ****ing loosing. The NFL is set up so a 5-11 team can go 11-5 next season. If RG3 is who they think he is then we can be very competitive next year.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=diehardskin2982;903512]I think we are a victim of circumstance in terms of the secondary because of the cap penalty. Now, we are hoping that the front 5 will create enough pressure to make up for the decline in the secondary.

RG3 is going to be 100x better Grossman and Beck last season. Can you imagine the bootleg with a 4.37 fast QB that can throw an accurate deep arm. I think we will lead the league in plays for over 20 yards per catch and we'll have the number 1 rushing offense. [B][I]The defense will struggle because they will have to deal with more desperate offenses[/I][/B].[/quote]

I could definitely see that happening yardage-wise because everyone will be throwing to catch up (hopefully). Will be so nice to see us have a decent lead and be able to send a ton of blitzers though. There was maybe one game last year where we actually had a lead and just sent the wolves. Was OUTSTANDING to watch.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

We are who we think we are!!!

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;903516]I could definitely see that happening yardage-wise because everyone will be throwing to catch up (hopefully). Will be so nice to see us have a decent lead and be able to send a ton of blitzers though. There was maybe one game last year where we actually had a lead and just sent the wolves. Was OUTSTANDING to watch.[/quote]

Piggy-backing off that. If our offense does put our defense in that position, I think we'll have a lot more turnover opportunities. As you said we'll be able to "send the wolves" let our OLBs pin their ears back and rush the QB, our secondary will have more room to take chances (could obviously help Hall). Would be very fun to watch.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. With the additions of Garcon and Morgan and possibly drafting RG3 or Andrew Luck, to speculate feels good. The defense should improve also. But it's all speculation. It all looks good on paper. I remember the Pittsburgh Steelers making it to the AFC championship game in Big Ben's rookie season and in some regards this Redskin team is shaping up to be just as good as those 2004 Steelers. A good running game, decent passing game, rookie quarterback, and a high ranking defense got them that far. Can the Redskins be similar in 2012? Remains to be seen.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903356]The Redskins cashed in everything to build the best possible passing game they could have going into 2012; that doesn't strike one as patient or building.[/quote]The cost of trading up to select either Griffin or Luck wasn't ideal but it was acceptable.
The FO/staff almost had to make that move if for nothing more then self preservation, thankfully both are perceived by the media/fanbase as 'worthy' prospects.
Despite how I feel about Tannehill, his perception from the media/fanbase doesn't come with the same 'worthy' label and therefore doesn't come with the same grace period as with Griffin/Luck.
And imo this FO/staff tenure beyond this season is very closely linked with the fan perception.
In short they cannot afford to lose the fans.
And not trading up and drafting Tannehill would have created an uphill battle with the fanbase from the start because of the media/fanbase perception of Tannehill being a 'reach' or 'settling'.

However the decision to rebuild the WR corps with Garcon and Morgan especially after the news of our league imposed FA/cap space sanctions leaves me somewhat puzzled.

I guess at the end of the day I wouldn't place adding 'explosive' plays to the passing game via a offseason focus on FA WRs wouldn't have been my idea of how to best use our limited FA resources.

Garcon and Morgan's contracts suggest that adding more 'explosive' WRs was the number 1 focus this offseason which tells me that lack of 'explosive' plays was the fault of the WRs alone.
But, my eyes tell me different.
My eyes tell me that Rex Grossman was the major cause of the lack of explosive plays.
Even the people that dislike Mc5 must admit that the passing game created more explosive plays with the [I]same[/I] receiving corps.
My eyes tell me that upgrade from Rex to a rookie QB but Griffin specifically stand to improve the number of explosive plays on his own.
A key factor for increasing 'explosive' plays is creating time.
Griffin can create time on his own another way to increase time is through pass protection.
But, RT is a position they have yet to address and there was a tailor made RT for this system on the market.

I believe that building a passing game with a young/rookie QB takes time and that having veteran WRs that know the scheme as opposed to learning the scheme can only make the transition smoother.
Other then the rare true No.1 WR I think that WRs are compliments to the core of the team as opposed to the core of the team itself.
Imo RT(OL), LB and S are core positions that need to be addressed this offseason.
Especially when Mike S. was talking about how important a solid defense, strong OL and running game are for a young/rookie QBs success.
But then again Mike Shanahan will say anything.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=30gut;903567]The cost of trading up to select either Griffin or Luck wasn't ideal but it was acceptable.
The FO/staff almost had to make that move if for nothing more then self preservation, thankfully both are perceived by the media/fanbase as 'worthy' prospects.
Despite how I feel about Tannehill, his perception from the media/fanbase doesn't come with the same 'worthy' label and therefore doesn't come with the same grace period as with Griffin/Luck.
And imo this FO/staff tenure beyond this season is very closely linked with the fan perception.
In short they cannot afford to lose the fans.

However the decision to rebuild the WR corps with Garcon and Morgan after the news of our league imposed FA/cap space sanctions leaves me somewhat puzzled especially consider the other needs like RT, S (both), ILB, RG.

Garcon and Morgan's contracts suggest that adding more 'explosive' WRs was the number 1 focus this offseason which tells me that lack of 'explosive' plays was the fault of the WRs alone.
But, my eyes tell me different.
My eyes tell me that Rex Grossman was the major cause of the lack of explosive plays.
Even the people that dislike Mc5 must admit that the passing game created more explosive plays with the [I]same[/I] receiving corps.
My eyes tell me that upgrade even from a rookie QB but Griffin specifically stand to improve the number of explosive plays on his own.
Imo a key factor for increasing 'explosive' plays is creating time.
Griffin can create time on his own another way to increase time is through pass protection.
But, RT is a position they have yet to address and there was a tailor made RT for this system on the market.

I guess at the end of the day I wouldn't place adding 'explosive' plays to the passing game via a offseason focus on FA WRs wouldn't have been my idea of how to best use our limited FA resources.

I believe that building a passing game with a young/rookie QB takes time and that having veteran WRs that know the scheme as opposed to learning the scheme can only make the transition smoother.
Other then the rare true No.1 WR I think that WRs are compliments to the core of the team as opposed to the core of the team itself.
Imo RT(OL), LB and S are core positions.[/quote]I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that even if you're right and merely getting Robert Griffin fixes the problem of lacking explosive players, that they still replaced players like Armstrong (who I still believe in) and Moss (who I no longer believe in) because they don't believe in them.

The problem of course is not that they saw their available cap room as an avenue to solve a perceived problem at receiver. The problem is that their attribution of our offensive struggles to our quarterbacks and receivers has prevented them from seeing the other problems.

They could have bargain shopped at receiver and probably improved competition by as much as they did. Clearly, they weren't looking for competition. They just don't think Moss or Armstrong can start in the NFL anymore (and in 2010, I will grant you that they were an excellent top two dragged down by the corpse of Joey Galloway). I mean, Early Doucet was out there for a while. Chaz Schilens was out there. Jerome Simpson is STILL out there. Jerricho Cotchery, Braylon Edwards: still free agents.

If the contracts for Morgan and Garcon were to be voided today by the evil spirit of John Mara, we could easily replace them both at 1/10th the cost. At least for the 2012 season.

And it's obvious they still like Jammal Brown at RT. Shanahan thinks he just hasn't been healthy. I'm not sure why he thinks this year will be any different, but that's what he thinks.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=That Guy;903485]this year, for example. I expect our offense to be better, but our secondary and LB corp may be worse. that's more like a trade off than an upgrade, but those are the choices you make and you just hope that overall you've done enough to win more games. I think RGIII will be huge in that regard, maybe even in year 1 and 2, but that, talent for dollar, garcon and morgan are a bit borderline.

It's easy to upgrade your top 53 with sub $2mill/year deals. upgrading the top 22 usually takes real money, but it's important to pick correctly there, since the contracts kind of marry you to those players. when you pick incorrectly (mcnabb/haynesworth/etc etc) it really stunts the team, since you've waste time developing players and cap space not signing guys that could actually help you win. It's MUCH better to not sign someone over giving big money to the wrong guy. you can't win via free agency with a 50% hit rate (which is what vinny had). BA has done better on that front.[/quote]Are MS/BA hitting at even close to a 50% rate in FA? My sense is that they are not, which is why we've been so poor on the field the last two years.

Their "successful" acquisitions have been Gaffney, and probably Kerrigan someday soon right? Trent Williams and Kory L, maybe? After that, there's a lot of "looks good in limited time" but then I think we need to account for why time is so limited on a team with so many holes. Hankerson and Jenkins: injury. That's easy. But Helu had basically no competition at RB last year until Royster got hot in the last three games.

I guess we'll see.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=Schneed10;903480]Trading the picks for Griffin was a wise move from both the immediate future perspective and the long term perspective. A top notch franchise quarterback will deliver more win shares over the next 10 to 15 years than three non-QB first round picks would. And the likelihood of Griffin not panning out is about the same as the three picks it took to get him going bust, so downside risk does not come into the equation in my mind.[/quote]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 [B]second pick[/B] 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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;903483]Mendacity, son, mendacity! Mr. Mike simply didn't tell us the truth. He knew he didn't have a playoff offense, just like he knew that Grossman and Beck couldn't get the job done at QB.

You seem to think that Mike Shanahan lacks the ability to realistically evaluate the talent on his team. I don't. I just think that he doesn't mind telling a few fibs about what he thinks of the talent level on his team.

For some reason I don't understand, the entire Redskins management team refuses to admit that they are rebuilding.[/quote]I would suggest that Mike is totally okay lying to the fans, but his quote about the "playoff-caliber" offense was, in context, unprompted. Larry Michael's question was open-ended, and asked how Mike Shanahan might go about improving the offense.

This was before 3 first round picks and a 2nd got traded to move up four spots, so obviously, that would have been a sufficient answer to the question. A simple "oh, you'll see" does the trick.

So EVEN if we assume that the playoff-caliber offense was a rehearsed line meant simply to project confidence instead of actual football acumen, then at very least, he was too cavalier about using it when he wasn't prompted.

It's Larry Michael. He wasn't trying to get Shanahan to admit his son's offense sucks.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=VegasSkinsFan;903473]Rebuilding, not rebuilding. It's not an important question. The real question is did we get better or worse than we were last season and have we positioned ourselves for long term success.[/quote]2010-no, 2011- yes, 2012- probably not, but it's all on Griffin's shoulders at this point.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903577]I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that even if you're right and merely getting Robert Griffin fixes the problem of lacking explosive players, that they still replaced players like Armstrong (who I still believe in) and Moss (who I no longer believe in) because they don't believe in them.....
......They could have bargain shopped at receiver and probably improved competition by as much as they did. Clearly, they weren't looking for competition. They just don't think Moss or Armstrong can start in the NFL anymore (and in 2010, I will grant you that they were an excellent top two dragged down by the corpse of Joey Galloway). I mean, Early Doucet was out there for a while. Chaz Schilens was out there. Jerome Simpson is STILL out there. Jerricho Cotchery, Braylon Edwards: still free agents.

If the contracts for Morgan and Garcon were to be voided today by the evil spirit of John Mara, we could easily replace them both at 1/10th the cost. At least for the 2012 season.

[I][COLOR="YellowGreen"]And it's obvious they still like Jammal Brown at RT. Shanahan thinks he just hasn't been healthy. [/COLOR][/I] I'm not sure why he thinks this year will be any different, but that's what he thinks.
[/quote]No lie, I dry heaved when I read your last paragraph and I hope in my heart of hearts that its not true (even though all signs point towards it).
It galls me that this franchise has gone so long without a starting caliber RT.
Hopefully they'll get lucky and draft our Jared Veldeer in the 3rd or Willie Smith emerges as an NFL caliber RT.
But, man I would feel much better about the chances of our rookie QB with a more certain soluton at RT.

I don't think Moss production/performance warrants being replaced this year but that's a discussion we've already had.
If Moss is still around come training camp I have no doubt that he will play his way on the team and that there will be reports of Moss looking like 'the best WR in camp'.
But, I agree that if they wanted to replace Moss they could/should have baragain shopped for WRs.
I mentioned Harry Douglass in the Garcon/Morgan thread along with some of the options you mentioned; but that's spilled milk now I guess.
Garcon and Morgan don't lack for talent/ability I just hope their signings don't preclude addressing other needs.

[quote]The problem of course is not that they saw their available cap room as an avenue to solve a perceived problem at receiver. The problem is that their attribution of our offensive struggles to our quarterbacks and receivers has prevented them from seeing the other problems.[/quote]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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=30gut;903587]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.[/quote]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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903582]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 [B]second pick[/B] 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.[/quote]

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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

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!

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=Schneed10;903598]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.

[B]You're cherry picking historically great first rounders, which is not the correct way to analyze this.[/B] 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.[/quote]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 [URL="http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/college_big_board_rankings.html&position=all"]professionals make their draft boards[/URL], 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.

[quote]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.[/quote]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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903604]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 [URL="http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/college_big_board_rankings.html&position=all"]professionals make their draft boards[/URL], 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.[/quote]

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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=Schneed10;903609]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.[/quote]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 [I]later[/I] because the future isn't a level playing field.

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

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

[quote=GTripp0012;903614]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 [I]later[/I] because the future isn't a level playing field.

Or to steal a phrase from the Redskins: the future is now.[/quote]

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.

Re: A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building
 

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.