What is RG3 worth to us?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I'm hoping your joking here.

If not, let me grill you like I will grill everyone else on this board who suggest using FA in a rebuilding way.

You use Free Agency if you have quick-patch fixes on your team. You're never going to have continuity if your always bringing in new guys.

Free agency can also be cancerous to your team. Albert Haynesworth. He got paid and quit playing. Adam Archuleta. He got paid and became a bench player. Brandon Lloyd. He never scored a TD in his career with us. Dana Stublefield. OJ Atogwe. We paid him; he has now been benched.

Green Bay. Pittsburgh. New Orleans. New England. Baltimore. New York. Atlanta. Now Houston and Detroit. What do these teams have in common? They build their teams through the draft and are in the playoffs (with most of these teams in the playoffs year in and year out.

Do you know how many starters/big name FA's all 7 teams signed?
A Combined 8. That's an average of 1 per team, with Green Bay and Pitt signing 0.

Look back to 09. The saints were weak at one area, secondary. They went out and signed Darren Sharper and Jabarri Greer. That went from a weakness to a strength. Now their in the playoffs every year, cause they had a Quick Fix which could be done in FA. (They also didn't go out an get the Big name guys like Dawkins or Dunta Robinson.)

Baltimore for as long as I can remember, signs one Free Agent every year, so that they can maintain continuity.

Green Bay has every single starter on their offense Drafted by them. Not one single FA.

Philly this year pulled a Redskins signing Nnamdi, Cullen Jenkins, Steve Smith, Vince Young, Ronnie Brown, (and traded for DRC). How did that work?

Free Agency was made, like I said as a 'oh we need just a CB and a veteran WR that knows what he's doing.' No as a "we need a CB, RB, WR, QB, ILB, OT, OG, we can address as much of that as we can in FA and the rest in the draft since that comes after FA."

Now I understand you say we get just 3 positions in FA and the rest in the draft, but already thats 1 maybe 2 positions more than we need to get in Free Agency instead of the draft. This is that super bowl mentality of 'well we need these couple of positions in FA and the rest in the draft, then we'll be a better team.'

No we won't be better, we are about 13 positions away from becoming a 'contender'. So with that said, we need to go the old MAX of 2 Free Agents an offseason, and draft and develop what we got and evaluate what else we need the next offseason.


So, to summarize; Don't suggest we need to get more than 2 guys in FA relating back to old bad habbits, because that, in part is one of the reasons we're bad, and I'm just going to copy and paste this post to the next skins fan who 'truly' wants us to get better by us using an old bad habit of addressing multiple needs in FA, to 'solve' our problems.

Not joking at all, which is why if you read what I wrote, I specified three positions where FA can help us rather than saying we can spend boldly to address the laundry list of positional need you mentioned.

There is no one way to rebuild a team. The Steelers and Packers are bad examples because they didn't REBUILD, they already had outstanding bases of talent that they are building upon. But even they have players that originated on other teams (Woodson, Ryan Grant, Ryan Clark) as well. They used free agency, just better than we have.

Signing free agents isn't a bad thing. Signing the WRONG free agents is. The Haynesworth, Archuleta (really? still using this example) argument is just lazy and frankly dumb. How did London Fletcher get to the Redskins, free agency. You mentioned Atlanta, Michael Turner-free agent, John Abraham-free agent.

Just as Kerrigan was a great draft pick, Kelly and Thomas were awful picks. As I said before, it doesn't matter how many picks you have, it's what you do with them. Same as free agency. Doesn't matter if you do 1, 2, 6, 8, 22. If you do it well and better than anyone else you'll have success.