Free Agency:

[Lanky Livingston]

I will give you the defensive side of the ball Bulldog, although I think we should note that Perry Riley was a 4th round choice and was starting by the middle of his second season. And being something of an impact player too, not just filling space.

But on offense where you seem to think we should be finding receivers who set the world on fire in the 5th or 6th round like Garçon or Colston I say look at the QB situation. You comparing guys who had All World QBs Peyton Manning and Drew Brees throwing them the ball with guys in here in Washington catching passes from Sexy Rexy and John Beck.

See a difference there?

I think it is possible that guys like Austin and Paul might have made more of an impact playing on a team with a future HoF QB throwing them the ball. At the very least they would have had better odds of it.

That's the exact point I made earlier. 6th rounders look AMAZING when you have a hall of famer throwing them the ball. I predict Eric Decker to go bananas this year.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Good thing too, cause in the 1984 draft, with 11 picks, he missed on every one but Jay Schroeder. Who only had a couple good years. And one damn good one.

but we traded schroeder for lachey who was our best LT and a massive part of our best team. if he had stayed healthy he would be a first ballot guy

 

[Ax]

but we traded schroeder for lachey who was our best LT and a massive part of our best team. if he had stayed healthy he would be a first ballot guy

True. However, it's equal parts Good Beathard and Dumbass Davis there.

Or like so many choices, luck.

 

[Om]

The early title teams here had some advantages the current group doesn't that really oughta be front and center in this discussion:

- a near-franchise-level QB in Theismann
- a first-ballot Hall of Fame RB in Riggins
- Gibbs himself--the young, hungry virtual unknown one

Add to that that we're talking different eras (salary cap, anyone?) and we're kinda talking apples and mangos.

 

[Bulldog]

Well, anyone can choose for argument's sake to blame the party that gives up the player who goes on to star as a 'stupid' dupe or actor in the process.

The fact Beathard was FAR MORE often than not on the receiving end of good and great talent vs. the one shipping it out should mean something to you.

As should the fact that each team he worked with went to a Super Bowl or more (KC, Miami, Washington, SD) and all but SD won the championship.

 

[Bulldog]

Of the Redskins Hall of Famers during that era only Riggins was already on the team.

Beathard drafted the others including Monk, Grimm, and Green.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Well, anyone can choose for argument's sake to blame the party that gives up the player who goes on to star as a 'stupid' dupe or actor in the process.

The fact Beathard was FAR MORE often than not on the receiving end of good and great talent vs. the one shipping it out should mean something to you.

As should the fact that each team he worked with went to a Super Bowl or more (KC, Miami, Washington, SD) and all but SD won the championship.

I cant recall beathard ever getting rooked while he was here, but then it was a loong time ago, but we came out on the better end soooo many times, oliphant for byner, schroeder for lachey, I dont think those were luck lanky.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

mean while Shanny has had several "just the tip" moments in 2 seasons lol

 

[Henry]

For the love of All That Is Holy, can we please stop comparing the current front office to Bobby freaking Beathard?

Beathard was here for twelve years and made over 120 draft picks. Cherry-picking some of them out and holding them up as proof that the current front office, with all of two years and 16 picks under their belt, can't draft adequately is absolutely insane. Seriously.

So some of our rookies haven't instantly turned into Dexter Manley. That's not proof that the front office can't find a guy like that. It doesn't mean a guy like Perry Riley, or Roy Helu or Leonard Hankerson won't become the hidden gem of glory that apparently eludes us now. Believe it or not, most rookies and second year guys didn't do much on the old 80s teams too.

Beathard was a great GM, but he was a great GM for an entirely different era when there was no cap and you made 12 picks a year and could stash them away on IR until they were ready to transition to the pro-game. Today's offseason is NOTHING like that now. Just ... stop already. I'm gonna bash my head against my monitor if I read one more post pining for a front office that hasn't existed for two decades, and can't possibly exist ever again.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Early post of the year candidate! Nicely said, Henry.

 

[riggins44]

Nicely, said Henry. Plus, in the 80's there was only Plan B free agents, so you kept you stars and core guys. You didn't have to restructure contract to meet a cap number, or letting some good guys go.

Rypien kept having a toe or mysterious injury every year in training camp until ready for primetime.

This is a different day.

 

[Neophyte]

Great post, Henry. Voted to blog it.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

And it is blogged.

Well done!

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

For the love of All That Is Holy, can we please stop comparing the current front office to Bobby freaking Beathard?

Beathard was here for twelve years and made over 120 draft picks. Cherry-picking some of them out and holding them up as proof that the current front office, with all of two years and 16 picks under their belt, can't draft adequately is absolutely insane. Seriously.

So some of our rookies haven't instantly turned into Dexter Manley. That's not proof that the front office can't find a guy like that. It doesn't mean a guy like Perry Riley, or Roy Helu or Leonard Hankerson won't become the hidden gem of glory that apparently eludes us now. Believe it or not, most rookies and second year guys didn't do much on the old 80s teams too.

Beathard was a great GM, but he was a great GM for an entirely different era when there was no cap and you made 12 picks a year and could stash them away on IR until they were ready to transition to the pro-game. Today's offseason is NOTHING like that now. Just ... stop already. I'm gonna bash my head against my monitor if I read one more post pining for a front office that hasn't existed for two decades, and can't possibly exist ever again.

you are only looking at the surface, I would also add that in those years we had no shot at free agents who were pro bowlers to immediately fill holes and back then we actually had one of the more respected scouting departments. as you have said in another thread, its also easier to find scheme p[layers when you have a scheme that is constant.

I would say though that judging by early results, we are not looking good, our lack of activity in free agency concerns me, not because I am wanting to sign every big name, but because even when we have cap space we havent spent it wisely. in regards to draft, we wont know for a few years if they have drafted well but their first draft was bad, their next draft was tolerable and this one coming up will need to be superlative, its the free agency and the getting hosed in trades that I am not a fan of.

 

[DieselPwr44]

Can we just go ahead and give Ryman the "Eeyore" avatar?

I guess there's no sense in me ever watching this team play again, because we NEVER make a right move.

Geez Louise...........

 

[Henry]

you are only looking at the surface, I would also add that in those years we had no shot at free agents who were pro bowlers to immediately fill holes and back then we actually had one of the more respected scouting departments. as you have said in another thread, its also easier to find scheme p[layers when you have a scheme that is constant.

Ry, the whole reason there's a salary cap now, and the whole reason we just got hit by the Commish with the cap hammer is because in the 80s the Haves had a very very big advantage over the Have Nots. And we were one of the Haves. The way we could stockpile talent in the 80s was unlike anything we'll ever see again.

Beathard was a top notch GM. That is without question. And he's most likely a better GM than Allen will ever be (I'd say that it's almost a certainty.) But even given that, holding up what Beathard did back then as a shining example of what we should be doing today is beyond laughable.

I would say though that judging by early results, we are not looking good, our lack of activity in free agency concerns me, not because I am wanting to sign every big name, but because even when we have cap space we havent spent it wisely. in regards to draft, we wont know for a few years if they have drafted well but their first draft was bad, their next draft was tolerable and this one coming up will need to be superlative, its the free agency and the getting hosed in trades that I am not a fan of.

I am not considered one of the optimists on this board. I was right there with you when we traded for McNabb. I was just as ticked that our first draft class was so small and that only two of them even made the team. I thought Riley was going to be a bust. I was not in favor of trading more than two firsts to move up for a QB. I have been screaming for OL help since Day One. I went and told it on the mountain about our repeated QB blunders. I am not sold on Garcon. I am less sold on Morgan.

And I think you are being seriously pessimistic, dude. Two starters from the first draft makes that draft tolerable. Like you say, too early to tell but the second draft looks like it may yield four or five starters ... maybe more. That is very very good. Just because the team has done some things badly (and believe me I know they have) doesn't mean the team does EVERYTHING badly.

Do me a favor. Just tell me one thing you think the Redskins have done right since Shanahan took over. Not something dumb like limiting appearances of the Funky Four, but something solid. Substantial. Something that you can say 'You know, I gotta hand it to these guys. Doing that thing was really impressive.'

Is there anything? Or is this team just totally and completely full of suck in your opinion. Because you sound a little overboard these days. And this is coming from one of your pessimists in arms.

 

[Neophyte]

Ok, the first draft from this front office wasn't bad. Granted, it didn't rock the world either but it wasn't bad. We have two starters out of it and that is without a 2nd or 3rd round pick. 4 of 6 guys drafted are still with the team (although I honestly expect that to change before opening day this year).

And last year was hardly tolerable. If Hankerson continues to show the same stuff he had in his last game of 2011 he might just be a legit #1. If Jenkins shows any of what we saw in preseason last year he will be a starter as well. And Helu or Royster one should be the starter this next year. Counting Kerrigan that is likely 4 starters out of last year with Hurt (LG) or Smith (RT) a possible 5th or maybe even 6th (not counting on it, just saying it's possible). Any team in the league would love to get 4 starters out of any single draft. At that rate, assuming neither OLman starts, we are still turning over our starting 22 every 5.5 years. Through the draft.

I'm not sure what you expect, Ryman, but I think you need to maybe try to bridge the gap between expectations and reality a little bit.

 

[Bulldog]

Hankerson has not proven yet that he can stay on the field and be a #3 let alone earn his way into a starting role. The thought he is going to be a #1 receiver in the NFL is premature to say the least.

One game with 106 yards receiving does not a career make.

In regards to some of the other receivers, in a year in which the Redskins were challenged to find playmakers at the WR position, has it dawned that the reason Paul, Robinson, Austin, Armstrong and others didn't feature prominently down the stretch was that the coaching staff didn't look at anyone else as having the requisite current skill or upside?

It certainly seems that way in that the Redskins not only targeted Garcon but also sign Josh Morgan and then were 90% of the way toward adding Eddie Royal as well.

That would have marked a 50% turnover at the position.

You don't make those kinds of investments when there is a lot there to work with already.

And that is the point of many of the comments here not only about WR but about the depth at a number of other positions on this team.

Just because a draft choice makes the team and is sitting on the bench may not be a victory for the scouting department and front office as much as an indictment of the previous year's roster and how little depth there was to begin with.

 

[Neophyte]

Hence my liberal use of the work "if", Bulldog.

I didn't promise anything and I don't think anything other than the right to keep on competing has been earned except for Helu and Royster. Pretty sure between those two a starting job as been earned, further proven out by the fact that the team doesn't appear in a rush to bring Hightower back and hasn't so much as been mentioned as being interested in another back.

Frankly, I believe unless you have an All Pro at any given position you can usually find someone who is an improvement, assuming you can sign them. Improvement is always the goal. Front offices should be looking always upgrade the weakest link.

When you have as many weak links as this team had prior to the 2010 draft, almost anything is an upgrade. Same with 2011. This year they are drafting a QB with the idea that it is the link that makes all links stronger. With the rest of this years draft they add more young talent that is hopefully an upgrade of our weakest positions.

In time the wheel will turn full circle and they can then look for guys to replace those that made the team over the last couple of drafts who were upgrades for the time but still not as strong as we want.

Rome was not built in a day.

 

[Henry]

Hankerson has not proven yet that he can stay on the field and be a #3 let alone earn his way into a starting role. The thought he is going to be a #1 receiver in the NFL is premature to say the least.

One game with 106 yards receiving does not a career make.

And yet you complain that he's not as amazing a find as Garcon was, who had 4 catches for 23 yards his rookie season.

In regards to some of the other receivers, in a year in which the Redskins were challenged to find playmakers at the WR position, has it dawned that the reason Paul, Robinson, Austin, Armstrong and others didn't feature prominently down the stretch was that the coaching staff didn't look at anyone else as having the requisite current skill or upside?

It certainly seems that way in that the Redskins not only targeted Garcon but also sign Josh Morgan and then were 90% of the way toward adding Eddie Royal as well.

That would have marked a 50% turnover at the position.

You don't make those kinds of investments when there is a lot there to work with already.

Morgan (and Royal had he signed here) were offered rather modest, short term contracts. Is it possible we just need to give some of our home-grown guys a little more time to develop?

And that is the point of many of the comments here not only about WR but about the depth at a number of other positions on this team.

You mean those positions where we DIDN'T sign a bunch of guys to replace our own players? I keep hearing how a guy like Hurt was merely an adequate starter, but maybe we aren't focusing on the OL so much because, using Bulldog logic, we LIKE the guys we have there? Maybe giving away so many picks for our future QB is an indication that we are confident in our abilities to find guys in the late rounds?

Now, I don't necessarily believe all that, but merely hope to illustrate to you one can rationalize any position based on any offseason moves. Signing a couple mid-level WRs does not suddenly mean we don't know how to properly draft.

Just because a draft choice makes the team and is sitting on the bench may not be a victory for the scouting department and front office as much as an indictment of the previous year's roster and how little depth there was to begin with.

Or it could be a combination of both. I just don't understand why some of you insist it has to be the latter, especially when we've only seen these guys play for one rookie season so far.