Home grown talent
 

Matty made a comment in [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/14956-giant-disappointment.html#post227791"]another thread[/URL] that got me thinking - why have we had such relative success in developing talent in some areas as opposed to others? For example, we could turn Peewee Herman into a Pro Bowl linebacker (of course, he wouldn't actually [B]make[/B] the Pro Bowl, because we always get robbed). We've done reasonably well on the O-line (Jansen/Dockery/Samuels), as well, and even at RB/FB (Sellers, Betts is OK).

However, D-line, secondary (ST is an exception - everyone knew he would be a beast), WR, and QB (still an unknown), it seems like we try to buy the position instead of cultivating talent. I recognize that WR/QB are skill positions that are much more difficult to build talent at, but I still thought it was interesting how our success seems localized at certain positions.

Re: Home grown talent
 

Gibbs has taken the approach of acquiring young free agents who are either in their prime or just entering it. Of course the downside of this is losing draft picks and the steeper price you have to pay for these free agents which in turn can impact depth.

Time will tell if this approach pays off. It paid off with a 10-6 playoff season last year, so it can work. I know when things are down everyone wants to question this approach, but I honestly don't see our talent level as a problem right now.

The pieces are in place for a successful season, but with a new offense we're seeing an adjustment period that we thought was over after the JAX game, but it's obviously something that's going to take a little more time to get fully ironed out.

Defensively we've been hampered by some key injuries, but hopefully Springs can get back into the mix soon and help cure some of those woes. The past two seasons the defense has gone through some tough stretches, but they got things worked out last year and I think they can do that again this year.

Re: Home grown talent
 

Gibbs is nothing if not an innovator. With innovation comes risk. We shall see if he is correct.

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=onlydarksets;227804]However, D-line, secondary (ST is an exception - everyone knew he would be a beast), WR, and QB (still an unknown), it seems like we try to buy the position instead of cultivating talent. I recognize that WR/QB are skill positions that are much more difficult to build talent at, but I still thought it was interesting how our success seems localized at certain positions.[/quote]

I actually think Washington is one of the best teams in the league as far as drafting defensive backs. Champ Baily, Fred Smoot, Sean Taylor and even Carlos Rogers. I'm not as quick to label him a bust as some people. He's about as good as Smoot was in his first couple of seasons, and he's a far better hitter and tackler.

Wide receivers are a different story. Sometimes you can find a diamond in the rough in late rounds, but usually, if you don't get one of the top three guys, they turn out to be average, or solid at best.

Drafting quarterbacks is russian roulette. You can draft a 6th round clip board carrier, that turns into Tom Brady or Brett Favre, or you can draft a first rounder that turns into Ryan Leaf or Cade McNown. It's mainly because it's hard to gauge a quarterbacks poise without seeing him play an NFL game at full speed.

Re: Home grown talent
 

I think there is a difference between nurturing talent and drafting a pimp, though. Champ and ST were pimps. I'll definitely give you Smoot, though. Rogers was a #9 pick - pimp position, but the jury is still out on whether or not he is a pimp.

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=onlydarksets;227812]I think there is a difference between nurturing talent and drafting a pimp, though. Champ and ST were pimps. I'll definitely give you Smoot, though. Rogers was a #9 pick - pimp position, but the jury is still out on whether or not he is a pimp.[/quote]


Champ and Smoot didn't like to tackle. That's a major reason why they are not here. Look at how effective Springs is on a blitz

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=Hog1;227823]Champ and Smoot didn't like to tackle. That's a major reason why they are not here. Look at how effective Springs is on a blitz[/quote]

Champ was a fine tackler, he just wasn't a big hitter. And Champ isn't here because he wanted to leave. I doubt very seriously that either Gibbs or Williams said anything remotely close to "The defense is better off without Champ Bailey. I want him gone".

Re: Home grown talent
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;227832]Champ was a fine tackler, he just wasn't a big hitter. And Champ isn't here because he wanted to leave. I doubt very seriously that either Gibbs or Williams said anything remotely close to "The defense is better off without Champ Bailey. I want him gone".[/QUOTE]

Seriously, Champ gets guys down. That's all that's important. He goes low and gets guys to the groud. I don't care if it looks pretty, he gets the job done. And I really can't think of any time when Champ Bailey came on a blitz at any point in his Redskin career. The defense would be much better off with Champ than it is with Springs. However, I could care less being that we got Portis out of the deal.

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=onlydarksets;227812]I think there is a difference between nurturing talent and drafting a pimp, though. Champ and ST were pimps. I'll definitely give you Smoot, though. Rogers was a #9 pick - pimp position, but the jury is still out on whether or not he is a pimp.[/quote]

Then I say draft more PIMPS! :)

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=hesscl34;227836]Then I say draft more PIMPS! :)[/quote]

That's tough to do when there's a fire sale on draft picks every season.

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=Southpaw;227832]Champ was a fine tackler, he just wasn't a big hitter. And Champ isn't here because he wanted to leave. I doubt very seriously that either Gibbs or Williams said anything remotely close to "The defense is better off without Champ Bailey. I want him gone".[/quote]

I must concede that Champ can tackle. However as you point out, he's not a hitter in Greg's model. I don't know if the D is better off without them or not. Nor does anyone else. I can also say I trust in Greg, as he is in the process of bringing the kind of D we want. He has delivered much on that issue in the last couple of years

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=Mattyk72;227806]Gibbs has taken the approach of acquiring young free agents who are either in their prime or just entering it. Of course the downside of this is losing draft picks and the steeper price you have to pay for these free agents which in turn can impact depth.

Time will tell if this approach pays off. It paid off with a 10-6 playoff season last year, so it can work. I know when things are down everyone wants to question this approach, but I honestly don't see our talent level as a problem right now.

The pieces are in place for a successful season, but with a new offense we're seeing an adjustment period that we thought was over after the JAX game, but it's obviously something that's going to take a little more time to get fully ironed out.

Defensively we've been hampered by some key injuries, but hopefully Springs can get back into the mix soon and help cure some of those woes. The past two seasons the defense has gone through some tough stretches, but they got things worked out last year and I think they can do that again this year.[/quote]

while i agree this approach has brought some young talent to the team, supposedly in their prime, the only problem is depth. When you pay so much money for these guys, and lose draft picks the quality of depth isn't all that great. Which like this year, is leaving us scrambling to fill holes when our starters go down. I think last year and this years draft is by far one of the best we have had since LaVar and Samuels. Rogers,Golsten,montgomery,Rocky look like they may be quality players. I also like Dougherty, I think he will be a quality depth player.

Re: Home grown talent
 

I disagree that it's Gibbs idea to buy young free agents for draft picks. I think this is a Danny / Vinny thing. Even when Spurrier was here we'd give up picks for players that were young and had a future. Coles was the only one that really worked out, but still.

Re: Home grown talent
 

[quote=Daseal;227850]I disagree that it's Gibbs idea to buy young free agents for draft picks. I think this is a Danny / Vinny thing. Even when Spurrier was here we'd give up picks for players that were young and had a future. Coles was the only one that really worked out, but still.[/quote]
The Danny prior to Gibbs went after big names that were on the down side of their careers. Gibbs altered the philosophy by mostly signing guys entering their prime years. And don't forget about Randy Thomas - he was acquired the same year as Coles, and he's worked out very nicely.

Re: Home grown talent
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;228020]The Danny prior to Gibbs went after big names that were on the down side of their careers. Gibbs altered the philosophy by mostly signing guys entering their prime years. And don't forget about Randy Thomas - he was acquired the same year as Coles, and he's worked out very nicely.[/QUOTE]

But it was Gibbs that HAD to have Brunell. I actually like Brunell, but we paid a way too high a price for him, and let's face it, he is sliding fast on the down side.
But speaking of wide receivers, there were none better thn the Posse...
Monk, Clark, Sanders. There is a pretty good article in the Washingtonian this month about Redskin QB's. Boy, it would be nice to have a good one now.