Football Outsiders Picks Redskins to Make Postseason

[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.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Marko was cut by the Lions. He couldn't beat out Northcutt or Byrant Johnson over there. If he really had any upside, he would have shown it by now.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

McNabb wasn't better in Philly than Mark Brunell was in Jacksonville. They're pretty similar players, overall............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.

I think you can most certainly can say that McNabb is better then Brunell was in Jax we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll take McNabbs win percentage, production, division titles, playoffs appearances and pro-bowls anyday.

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.

I don't neccesarily disagree with what you're saying, but its still speculation at this point and Tainer goes on like it a proven fact.

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.....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.

Mitchell although a fan favorite and pre-season stud was imo a replacement level player. And to say there's no player development isn't accurate because Armstrong seems to fit the mold PF/KR/WR and we're already developing or seeking the fruits of our own developmental WRs now.

It seems logical to me that our WR mix includes our unproven youth/developmental players + veterans as opposed to unproven youth backed up by developmental players.

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.

Its debateable b/c Shanahan has success with both, bottom line for me is the guy can develop offensive talent young or veteran. (Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Tony Scheffler, Peyton Hillis, Ryan Clady...Terrel Davis, Shanon Sharpe, Rod Smith)

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.

On the OL Shanahan likes talented players be it from the draft or FA i'm sure if the talent pool is barren Forester will be given the personelle he needs. But, Shanahan has a history of raising the performance level of his players, which is a sign of a good coaching.

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.

You gotta keep in mind we're talking about 1 off-season they Shanahan/Allen inherited the current state of affairs and you can only guess at what they'll do next year so you can't say there's no emphais on development.

Especially since some of the positions you mention have developmental players on the roster now.

WRs- we've already been through Devin/Malcolm are our developmental players then there's also Armstrong (if/when he makes the team).

RB- agreed as yet no developmental prospects; although the backs we have now are argueably better then the developmental prospects from last year

DL-In the 1st year of a new DL scheme its gonna be difficult to have developmental players but the DE position has a player in his prime Haynesworth and 2 relatively young/not old players in Carriker and Golston
NT-No decent developmental prospects

ILB-Blades, Riley and Henson

OLB-Chris Wilson, Alexander, Jarmon, Jackson, Gatewood

DB-Kareem Moore, Tryon, Barnes, Westbrook

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Mitchell although a fan favorite and pre-season stud was imo a replacement level player. And to say there's no player development isn't accurate because Armstrong seems to fit the mold PF/KR/WR and we're already developing or seeking the fruits of our own developmental WRs now.

It seems logical to me that our WR mix includes our unproven youth/developmental players + veterans as opposed to unproven youth backed up by developmental players.

I'm not going to argue against the fact that holding onto a Cerrato 7th round draft pick probably wasn't going to make people forget about Jerry Rice anytime soon. This team won't have much trouble replacing the four catches Mitchell had last season. Bobby Wade can do that. Likewise, if they lost the 50 catches that Kelly and Thomas combined for last year, well, there's a veteran out there who can go out and replace that production in 2010. Owens = Thomas + Kelly.

And while there's certainly a mix of young and old amongst the receivers, with and without Mitchell (my point wasn't that we're too old at the position overall), I'm under the impression that Anthony Armstrong isn't really going to be given a fair shot to make the team. He's here because he can work with the Brennan/Bartel third team in camp, and work with Terrence Austin to return kicks in the preseason. Perhaps he can beat out that seventh rounder, but I think that if there's even a smidge of doubt, the benefit goes to the draft pick.

You gotta keep in mind we're talking about 1 off-season they Shanahan/Allen inherited the current state of affairs and you can only guess at what they'll do next year so you can't say there's no emphais on development.

Especially since some of the positions you mention have developmental players on the roster now.

WRs- we've already been through Devin/Malcolm are our developmental players then there's also Armstrong (if/when he makes the team).

RB- agreed as yet no developmental prospects; although the backs we have now are argueably better then the developmental prospects from last year

DL-In the 1st year of a new DL scheme its gonna be difficult to have developmental players but the DE position has a player in his prime Haynesworth and 2 relatively young/not old players in Carriker and Golston
NT-No decent developmental prospects

ILB-Blades, Riley and Henson

OLB-Chris Wilson, Alexander, Jarmon, Jackson, Gatewood

DB-Kareem Moore, Tryon, Barnes, Westbrook

I really don't think it's outlandish to look at the moves made this offseason and point out that there hasn't been so much as a half hearted attempt to pick up some players who might be useful down the road based on raw physical tools. We opted for a small UDFA class because we brought in A LOT of players from around the league to win jobs in camp this year.

As pointed out by many beside myself, we're not tied at the hip to any of the veterans we signed this year. We can part with every last one of them at the end of the year if we so choose.

I do sense the team is trying to develop Kareem Moore this year...I'm skeptical as to how much he can actually learn beyond picking up a new defense between years two and three, but I think they're trying to get more out of him than Gray/Blache did.

We still have a lot of defensive depth from the Cerrato days, but while I'm hoping to see Perry Riley become the next Fletcher, and Rocky McIntosh to take to and thrive in this defense, and Carter to really excel in a 3-4 OLB role, I still think there's a lot of "starters" and "backups" in Haslett's defense (to say: they aren't really interchangeable). With select exceptions, Haslett will draft his own future starters over the next two years, and not try to turn backups into more than just role players.

However, even finding niches for backups would make them more useful than they have been in the past.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm not going to argue against the fact that holding onto a Cerrato 7th round draft pick probably wasn't going to make people forget about Jerry Rice anytime soon. This team won't have much trouble replacing the four catches Mitchell had last season. Bobby Wade can do that. Likewise, if they lost the 50 catches that Kelly and Thomas combined for last year, well, there's a veteran out there who can go out and replace that production in 2010. Owens = Thomas + Kelly.

And that's with a trio of 3 sub-par QBs throwing him the ball.
People can diss TO all they want but wouldn't mind seeing him on the roster.

I'm under the impression that Anthony Armstrong isn't really going to be given a fair shot to make the team. He's here because he can work with the Brennan/Bartel third team in camp, and work with Terrence Austin to return kicks in the preseason. Perhaps he can beat out that seventh rounder, but I think that if there's even a smidge of doubt, the benefit goes to the draft pick.

I would agree with if Shanahan wasn't the HC.
If there was ever a coach that will give an UDFA a fair shake its Shanahan.
If Armstrong comes to play he'll make the squad.

I really don't think it's outlandish to look at the moves made this offseason and point out that there hasn't been so much as a half hearted attempt to pick up some players who might be useful down the road based on raw physical tools. We opted for a small UDFA class because we brought in A LOT of players from around the league to win jobs in camp this year.

Maybe so, but i think we brought in a lot of UDFA because Shanahan has found talent their before and we disn't have a lot of draft picks to rebuild/retool.

As pointed out by many beside myself, we're not tied at the hip to any of the veterans we signed this year. We can part with every last one of them at the end of the year if we so choose.

Which makes sense to me because we should be replacing them via the draft with developmental players. Although i think Carriker/Kemo will stick.

I do sense the team is trying to develop Kareem Moore this year...I'm skeptical as to how much he can actually learn beyond picking up a new defense between years two and three, but I think they're trying to get more out of him than Gray/Blache did.

Blache always claimed to try to get Kareem on the field more often.
I think Moore is a developmental player that at a minimum can match the level of play that Doughty/Horton bring to the table.

I still think there's a lot of "starters" and "backups" in Haslett's defense (to say: they aren't really interchangeable). With select exceptions, Haslett will draft his own future starters over the next two years, and not try to turn backups into more than just role players.

I think Chris Wilson and Blades are starting level players given the opportunity. The DEs behind Haynesworth i view as starting caliber players: Carriker, Holiday, Daniels and Golston.

Haslett also seems high on Alexander and i don't think its just coachspeak.

If we focus on DL, NT in particular in the upcoming draft i think our defense can be steady for several years.

[Schneed10]

The other major problem with his argument that I must point out (being a salary cap person), he indicates we're headed down the same vicious cycle that puts us under salary cap constraints, and says that's likely to happen to us in 2011.

He may be a statistical wizard working for football outsiders, but he's clearly ignorant of the realities of the CBA discussions to date (or lack thereof). Chances are slim there will be football in 2011, let alone a salary cap.

[GTripp0012]

The Seattle chapter in FOA 2010 brought up a great point: Tim Ruskell took the exact same risk with Walter Jones that Vinny took with Chris Samuels, and got almost identical negative results, including a firing. The only real difference between our offense last year and Seattle's was quarterback play, where Campbell substancially outperformed Hasselbeck with a nearly identical supporting cast (another reason why QB age matters). Either way, neither team won six games, and both personnel guys were fired for their risks-gone-bad.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Seattle chapter in FOA 2010 brought up a great point: Tim Ruskell took the exact same risk with Walter Jones that Vinny took with Chris Samuels, and got almost identical negative results, including a firing. The only real difference between our offense last year and Seattle's was quarterback play, where Campbell substancially outperformed Hasselbeck with a nearly identical supporting cast (another reason why QB age matters). Either way, neither team won six games, and both personnel guys were fired for their risks-gone-bad.

What evidence is there to support the notion that Hasselbeck underperformed because of his age?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

What evidence is there to support the notion that Hasselbeck underperformed because of his age?

Well, in Hasselbeck's case, age decline isn't the only reason he hasn't performed at pro bowl level the last two seasons: his cast has declined around him, and the system has changed on him -- he did one thing for so long that he became a system player of sorts -- but certainly the age 35 version isn't anything remotely resembling the age 32 version.

[SmootSmack]

The fact we cut Mitchell means we have no player development at all? Sure, whatever

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The fact we cut Mitchell means we have no player development at all? Sure, whatever

More like there's no player development and also we happened to cut Mitchell -- more independent than dependent -- but I guess if you want to say that we don't actually need to keep young players on the offensive side of the roster to develop players, that's okay with me.

Hey, maybe Colt Brennan will win the starting QB job in camp, in the spirit of "competition". He's young. Sort of.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The fact we cut Mitchell means we have no player development at all? Sure, whatever

I know.. Anthony Mix caught on really well after he left here..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I know.. Anthony Mix caught on really well after he left here..

The arena league never saw someone so...tall?

[Schneed10]

It just seems completely pointless to complain about the Redskins recent 'player development' practices, which have nothing to do with Shanahan and Allen.

The failures of the previous coaching staff and front office are well documented. But to say that there's now no player development going on in Washington is premature. Allen and Shanahan just got to town. Just because they're trading away picks and bringing in vets doesn't mean they're giving up on younger players. My whole point here is that the arrival of the vets is primarily aimed at motivating the younger players, which forces them to work hard and evolve their game.

You're going to have to wait a year or two before you can pass a judgment on Allen and Shanahan's player development practices. But you know what, ultimately I'm a lot more interested in roster development than player development.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

I would say the .... and I hate saying it but as a realist I have to... the only team in the division that looks better on paper right now is the Cowboys. BUT they have question marks to, and theirs is all along the offensive line. Their recieving corp , RBs, are better than us. On D I would say we are even, same with the QBs.

Now the Eagles I believe we are ahead of and the Giants I would put us right on par with them.

Of course if our Dline and Oline come out and dominate this year. I put us ahead of all three squads, and give us a great chance to win the division. Remember guys, The Redskins are not the only team in the NFC East who have a beast of a schedule. We all do, and we have a slightly eaiser schedule then the other 3.