A Clarification on whether the Redskins are Re-Building

We are who we think we are!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.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 same 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.

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 same 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.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.

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.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.

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.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.

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.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.

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.2010-no, 2011- yes, 2012- probably not, but it's all on Griffin's shoulders at this point.

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.

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.
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.

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.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.