Football Outsiders Picks Redskins to Make Postseason

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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