Quote:
Originally Posted by SouperMeister
Yes, I believe that starting in 2011, more emphasis is being placed on the draft. In 2010, we had fewer choices, which limited how much could be accomplished after trading the 2nd round pick for McNabb. As for the Haynesworth mess, Snyder and Cerrato tried to get cute with the cap by pushing Al's huge $20M bonus to the uncapped 2010 year. I sense that Shanny tried to make it work by communicating with Haynesworth before that bonus was paid. In hindsight, Shanny probably should have cut Al sooner when it was apparent that he wasn't getting with the program. Regarding the DBs, Snyder and Cerrato tied Shanny's hands by giving Hall a big contract after less than half a season here. Rogers is clearly the better cover corner, and is finally holding onto the ball in SF, the change of scenery has been good for him. Landry should be re-signed, but not for Ed Reed money. We have decent tools defensively, but the offense is bereft, starting with the O-line and QB. It's time to stop neglecting those positions, and I believe they will be addressed early in the draft.
|
I'm not going to disagree with you, rather, I'm going to write the opposite narrative.
The 2011 draft was a diversion from the norm because the Redskins had a strategy going into draft day, and it got blown up when Jake Locker got taken 8th overall by the Titans and then Robert Quinn got taken two picks ahead of where the Redskins traded down to, leaving Kerrigan as the best of the rest. The only pick they made who they had targeted was Jenkins. Hankerson fell, so they took a flyer on him even though they were lukewarm on him. The trade up for Helu made more sense because of the weakness at RB rather than because of their grade on a player.
The Redskins are always looking to put the best possible team on the field every week. That's why they re-signed Moss, upgraded the DL even though there weren't ideal options available, tried to fix that secondary with a vet like Atogwe. They've failed at winning because they struggle to evaluate talent.
The 2010 offseason was a good example of what the Redskins' top execs wanted to accomplish here. They didn't stick to it too long when it obviously wasn't working, but McNabb was supposed to be a savior, the defense was supposed to be better than this, particularly in the secondary, and they've never been hesitant to scapegoat players unceremoniously when their best laid plans don't work. In 2011, the Redskins tried something else because they had beaten themselves the prior year, not because they really believed in those methods.
****
I don't believe everything I just wrote, but I thought it would be good to see the perspective that there is no trend towards rebuilding.