[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Second, McNabb is cleary better then Mark Brunell.

McNabb wasn't better in Philly than Mark Brunell was in Jacksonville.

Donovan McNabb NFL & AFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Mark Brunell NFL & AFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

They're pretty similar players, overall. Mike Shanahan and Joe Gibbs both put stress on the quarterback getting the ball out of his hands as not to stall the offense, so we'll probably see an improvement in McNabb's sack rate similar to that seen in Brunell's Washington days and also Jake Plummer's Denver days.

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. Comparing the compensation packages for each, I'd expect Shanahan is getting a better project than Gibbs is. Or more accurately, he thinks he is.

Thrid, we don't know what moves we'll make next year and therefore he shouldn't assume that they'll be uneccesary and over-priced (money+draft picks).
Also, the moves we've made this off-season have all been inexpensive and we don't know as yet how they'll pan out.

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.

We need to fill out our roster and having Galloway and Parker is no worse if not flat out better then having Marcus Mason and Marko Mitchell.

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.

He may or may not have fit the scheme or had any sort of long term potential under Kyle Shanahan, but rather than fool around with a 25 year old longshot for a year and risk a sub-replacement performance, we cut him outright in June and look to be going with some sort of veteran in the fourth receiver role. It's only a few plays per game, so whatever, but the interest is clear: 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.

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. 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. 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.

If they keep drafting superstars in the first round every year, they'll keep winning. Vinny left a pretty nifty present with Orakpo, and I like Trent Williams as a line anchor for at least the next three or four years, hopefully longer. If we hit on first rounders in 2011 and 2012, we'll have a nice amount of young talent regardless of the lean towards veteran productivity. One miss and that's when the "age will get us" predictions start to hit their mark.