• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

OF: State of Grace

Serventuum, I think you are most likely correct. I'm not sure we are in rebuild mode at all, or ever will be. Where I disagree with you is that I think there is something seriously wrong with that. That means Dan Snyder hasn't learned a damn thing, and we are still on The Treadmill. It also makes calls for patience ring hollow.

I hope you and I are wrong on this.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Henry, given the insights I just got from China's post, we may not be in as much disagreement as you may have thought. My premise about immediate success being a prerequisite for a team rebuild deals with establishing credibility and confidence on the part of both the owners of the franchise and the fan base in the GM and coaching staff sufficient for them to implement a longer term rebuild. If Allen and Shanahan (and here I'm including Kyle S. as a proposed hypothetical successor as HC) can establish that level of credibility with the fans and the owner I can plausibly see a long term or even permanent commitment on the part of the owner to a hands-off let them build the team into another Steelers, Patriots, Colts type consistent contender including finding a talented teachable future franchise QB to build around.

Why I see nothing wrong with the short-term turnaround approach is my fear that without short-term success we will be looking at Marty Part II with the carousel fixing to start up again.
 
Looking at the Rnady Moss trade today actually makes me question Bellichick's methods.

Those consistent contenders have one thing in common by the way. Franchise QB. Most important position on the field. You strike gold with that position, you're good to go for years.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Interesting, Goaldeje. I thought the trade of Moss back to the Vikes smacked of more of Bellicheck's genius when it comes to personnel decisions. He got a third round pick for a guy he gave up 4th for 3 years ago while still get 3 of Moss's best years out of the man. He is now 34 and while he may have some gas left in the tank, I doubt it is more gas than that third round pick will be worth if Bill chooses wisely in the next draft.

I thought it was another example of NE using a player right to the point of them being done and rather than being forced to cut them once they were non-productive, getting some value for them from another team.

I love seeing Portis on the field in Burgundy and Gold and would love to see him do it for years to come but I am realistic and if he were healthy and another team would give me a 3rd for him today, I might just take it. (Just to give you an example)
 
I doubt Bellichick made this move because he didn't think Moss had value. He made it because he felt Moss was coming to the close of his career and they are getting a significant pick in exchange for letting him go before he's completely done. Risky move I guess, but hard to argue with this strategy given what the Pats have done...
 
And you wonder why the Pats seem to have 10 draft picks every year. Since 2000, they've had 101 picks, or 9.2 picks per season. One of whom was, of course, Tom Brady.

Over that same span, the Redskins have made 70 picks, or 6.3 per season.

Think about that for a second. The Patriots have had over four full drafts more than we have over the past 11 seasons.
 
here's what I'm wondering. despite the slow start for Moss this season (intentional?) that was a high scoring, we'll crush you offense. now the Pats are back to a 24 point offense - putting more pressure on the defense. many more Pats games are going to go down to the wire than in the past would be my guess.

that 3rd rnd pick? won't materialize into a viable player - based on normal player development patterns - for at least 3 years from now (1 yr to draft, 2-3 yrs to mature into a valid NFL player). and the Pats haven't been as successful as in the past with their draft picks.
 
Really drives home the point there doesn't it, Henry?

Here are a few more numbers from the Pats to go with those 9.2 picks per season:

6 - Years they have won their division
7 - Years they have made the playoffs
9 - Number of consecutive winning seasons they have had
11.9 - Number of wins they have averaged per year over those 9 seasons

Seems to me what Bill does in NE works. Granted, he has had Brady most of that time but still, seems conclusive to me.
 
My "State of Grace(ful)" plan would take another year, maybe two.

We need to get much, much younger. Don't get rid of McNabb - four more years with him and time to groom another (potential) franchise QB is the way to go.

The rest of my plan? Here is my best shot...

Go all offense in the draft.

1st Rd. - WR and make it a good one. :)
2nd Rd. - OG
5th Rd. - RB - Coach knows how to find them.
6th Rd. - FB - an excellent FB can be found at this pick.
7th Rd. - RB - Yep, Coach can find a second gem here as well.

UDFA - In the glut of UDFAs, a gem amongst OG, OT, C, RB, or WR may be found as well.

In free agency, concentrate on defense and go for two studs and two solid performers. DE, LB, DT, and CB. A stud DT if AH doesn't work out or a stud DE and a stud CB would be preferable. Solid performer(s) at LB. However, if a stud WR becomes available, grab him.

Target specific needs the following year as needed. Begin a "search" for that future franchise QB.
 
Some great posts and insight here. Wish I had time to dig into all of them but unfortunately I don't this week so I'll just throw out one thought:

There seems to be an strong appeal among many fans to the idea of "blowing it all up and starting over." Almost as if it is guaranteed to achieve the results--winning--everyone wants.

My sense of it, and I suspect it would be borne out by research, is that "starting over" probably fails miserably at least as often if not more than it achieves any kind of sustained success in a reasonable time frame.

How many times over the past couple of decades have teams like the Lions, and Browns started over? Falcons? Raiders? I'm just choosing obvious examples to illustrate the point, not putting them forth as proof.

Seems to me you win any way you can. If you are lucky enough to land a Peyton Manning at #1, as the Rams may have done with Bradford, "starting over" looks pretty sweet.

If you're a middle-of-the-road team like the Pats were, seemingly stuck in the great middle like the Redskins have been for so long, when Brady fell from the sky, you dont' have to start over, you just try to build a good support system around him and ride the comet as long as you can. You try to turn over the roster and not neglect key aspects (Vinny and the criminal neglect of the lines), but also stay competitive enough so that in the occasional year when you stay healthy and the schedule adn bounces fall your way, you can catch a title wave.

Title wave. Heh.

Okay I'm rambling.

Point was supposed to simply be: "starting over" sounds great in theory. Just not sure how often it works out in reality the way it sounds in the head. Or is particularly well-suited to the free agency and mega-contract era.
 
Interesting, Goaldeje. I thought the trade of Moss back to the Vikes smacked of more of Bellicheck's genius when it comes to personnel decisions. He got a third round pick for a guy he gave up 4th for 3 years ago while still get 3 of Moss's best years out of the man. He is now 34 and while he may have some gas left in the tank, I doubt it is more gas than that third round pick will be worth if Bill chooses wisely in the next draft.

I thought it was another example of NE using a player right to the point of them being done and rather than being forced to cut them once they were non-productive, getting some value for them from another team.

I love seeing Portis on the field in Burgundy and Gold and would love to see him do it for years to come but I am realistic and if he were healthy and another team would give me a 3rd for him today, I might just take it. (Just to give you an example)


Seems to me, Mr. Anderson ;) that Bellichick just cost himself a chance to win this year. Some will argue, perhaps fairly, that they weren't going to win anyway, so maybe that's why Bill cut his losses. That's possible of course, but you never know in the NFL. They went from having a puncher's chance to virtually no chance at all.

And why? To gain ANOTHER draft pick? What are the odds of a third rounder stepping in and contributing right away? Furthermore, what are the odds of that player stepping in and contributing enough to replace the defensive attention Moss drew, plus his production? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say minuscule at best. So he cost himself a chance this year to get a player that may possibly significantly contribute in 3 years (and that's if the player isn't a bust, or even mediocre), and we think this is good?

Seems like a terrible move to me. At the risk of inciting a riot, draft picks aren't everything they're cracked up to be, imo. Sure, the more of them you have, the more likely you are, just playing the odds, to find one that works out, I'll grant you that. But imagine instead if Bill had more faith in his defensive scheme this year. Let's imagine that he felt confident the players were going to gel late in the season and start to really play cohesively late. As an aside, if he doesn't have that confidence in his scheme, why is he running it? And if he doesn't have that confidence in his players, well, he drafted them. Which sort of makes my point.

Anyway, let's say he thought his D would be playing better. Why not hang onto Moss, maybe even add another player. Marshawn Lynch would help their running game. Or would have. Vincent Jackson would be a terrific complement to Welker and Moss (though I do think AJ's asking price is wayyyyy too high). Their offense has looked pretty good, I think they need a little help at running back, or commit to throwing the ball 40 times a game and go get VJax. Why not do what Minny did and put all your chips in and commit to winning now?

Instead, Bill hoards his draft picks. Here's his dirty little secret: he ALWAYS trades down. Always. One draft, he is going to own the entire 7th round. At some point, he is too clever for his own good. Hasn't won the big one in 6 years now, right? Sure they are always in the playoffs, but he is too busy thinking about how to improve the team 3-5 years down the road to go balls out trying to win today. And by the way, his draft record over the past 4-5 years ain't great. If it was, with all their draft picks, they would be on top of the league now, right?

And don't tell anyone, but Tom Brady is 33. I know. Almost as old as our ancient starting QB. You know, the one that has MAYBE 2 good years left. Food for thought.

Anyway, back to the Skins. Obviously Cerrato was a nightmare, one that if I could forget I would. But I disagree with people who hold up the Patriots as an example of how to do things. If they win it all this year, I will gladly eat my crow. I think the answer is a smart blend of draft picks (with a first rate scouting department) and free agents. Those who say we need to blow it all up and start with draft picks only? Do you have that much confidence in our front office to nail every pick? Do you have that much confidence in any FO to nail even 75% of their picks?
 
Damn. That was a book. Considered blogging it, but who wants to read that much about the Patriots on a Redskins blog?

:)
 
Om, I'm certainly not suggesting that a complete rebuild is a guarantee for success. Hell, you don't even need to go outside the Redskins to find an example of that (thank you, Mr. Turner.) However, I will say if you want to have a chance of catching that title wave ... if you want to eventually take your turn as one of the Teams of the Decade ... that's how you do it. You can't catch lightning in a bottle if you don't get the bottle and go outside. :)

If you are satisfied with bouncing between 7 and 9 wins, with the chance that someday we may sprinkle in a 10+ season here and there before bouncing back down, well, we can just keep on doing what we're doing. If that's our plan I can only hope we start to get better at it. At least we have a solid front office structure in place now so there's that.

Goeldeje, if I had confidence in our front office's ability to nail every pick, I'd be fine with only having 3-5 of them every year. :) And say what you want about the Patriots leaning on Brady, but they DID manage to win 11 games in 2008 without him. When was the last time we won 11 games?
 
Last edited:
Henry,

2008 was a momentum year for the Pats. You know ...

"Teams several years into riding the title wave of owning a true Franchise QB will and can remain competitive up to an entire year when said FQ is lost to injury, suspension or other absence. Rising tides neither rise, nor recede, in the course of a single season."

I think it's in Chapter 4 of the QB Theory Bible.

:)
 
Last edited:
Goeldeje, if I had confidence in our front office's ability to nail every pick, I'd be fine with only having 3-5 of them every year. :) And say what you want about the Patriots leaning on Brady, but they DID manage to win 11 games in 2008 without him. When was the last time we won 11 games?

Granted, but I think the jury is still out on Cassel. KC will win a lot of games this year, due to a weak schedule, but also b/c of Cassel. He may be a better QB than last year showed.

I'm not saying if you get a franchise QB, you automatically are guaranteed 11-14 wins/year. I'm just saying a true franchise QB makes the other players on the field look a little better than maybe they really are. Deion Branch anyone? Anyone else believe Lance Moore has the two back to back games he has had this year with Derek Anderson throwing him the ball?

My point is that people tend to be sycophantic when it comes to the Pats. They have had a ton of success, but I'm not impressed lately. I think they could have won more lately had they gone for it all instead of continually planning for 3-5 years down the road. Draft picks are good, yes. But free agents are not the devil*.


*Does not apply to Deion Sanders, Jeff George, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier, Albert Haynesworth, Brandon Lloy...
 
Yes, you need a good balance. Free agents are not the devil. :) I agree.

But by the same token I think some of you are over-emphasizing the impact of the Franchise QB. A franchise QB can make you competitive, but he cannot make you a contender all by himself.

Look at Favre. When he went to the Jets they improved to 9-7. Very nice, but not exactly a top-tier team. The next year he went to the Vikings, a team that already had most of the other pieces in place. Suddenly they are in the NFCC game.

I'm saying that we don't want to be that 9-7 version, forever. And that is exactly what we're going to get the way we've been trying to build teams, by emphasizing free agency over the draft, rather than finding that good balance.
 
Seems to me, Mr. Anderson ;) that Bellichick just cost himself a chance to win this year. Some will argue, perhaps fairly, that they weren't going to win anyway, so maybe that's why Bill cut his losses. That's possible of course, but you never know in the NFL. They went from having a puncher's chance to virtually no chance at all.

And why? To gain ANOTHER draft pick? What are the odds of a third rounder stepping in and contributing right away? Furthermore, what are the odds of that player stepping in and contributing enough to replace the defensive attention Moss drew, plus his production? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say minuscule at best. So he cost himself a chance this year to get a player that may possibly significantly contribute in 3 years (and that's if the player isn't a bust, or even mediocre), and we think this is good?

Seems like a terrible move to me. At the risk of inciting a riot, draft picks aren't everything they're cracked up to be, imo. Sure, the more of them you have, the more likely you are, just playing the odds, to find one that works out, I'll grant you that. But imagine instead if Bill had more faith in his defensive scheme this year. Let's imagine that he felt confident the players were going to gel late in the season and start to really play cohesively late. As an aside, if he doesn't have that confidence in his scheme, why is he running it? And if he doesn't have that confidence in his players, well, he drafted them. Which sort of makes my point.

Anyway, let's say he thought his D would be playing better. Why not hang onto Moss, maybe even add another player. Marshawn Lynch would help their running game. Or would have. Vincent Jackson would be a terrific complement to Welker and Moss (though I do think AJ's asking price is wayyyyy too high). Their offense has looked pretty good, I think they need a little help at running back, or commit to throwing the ball 40 times a game and go get VJax. Why not do what Minny did and put all your chips in and commit to winning now?

Instead, Bill hoards his draft picks. Here's his dirty little secret: he ALWAYS trades down. Always. One draft, he is going to own the entire 7th round. At some point, he is too clever for his own good. Hasn't won the big one in 6 years now, right? Sure they are always in the playoffs, but he is too busy thinking about how to improve the team 3-5 years down the road to go balls out trying to win today. And by the way, his draft record over the past 4-5 years ain't great. If it was, with all their draft picks, they would be on top of the league now, right?

And don't tell anyone, but Tom Brady is 33. I know. Almost as old as our ancient starting QB. You know, the one that has MAYBE 2 good years left. Food for thought.

Anyway, back to the Skins. Obviously Cerrato was a nightmare, one that if I could forget I would. But I disagree with people who hold up the Patriots as an example of how to do things. If they win it all this year, I will gladly eat my crow. I think the answer is a smart blend of draft picks (with a first rate scouting department) and free agents. Those who say we need to blow it all up and start with draft picks only? Do you have that much confidence in our front office to nail every pick? Do you have that much confidence in any FO to nail even 75% of their picks?

Good points all, sir. And frankly, I agree with most of them but I do see the other side of the coin. The one Bill obviously favors, be that right or wrong.

Moss is 34 now. It is almost as tough for receivers to play into their mid 30s as running backs. Not quite but almost. Has father time caught up to Moss at this point? No, but you can hear his footsteps from here. Moss is still a great player, no doubt, as his play TD against Revis a couple weeks ago proved but for how much longer?

Moss is a FA at the end of the year and has already made noise twice (once in Feb and then in his post game presser after the opener) about an extension, and you just know what he means isn't vet min with incentives. NE just gave Brady $20 million a year. You know Moss and his agent looked at that and thought "man, half of that would be nice to have for myself." I would go so far as to bet that Bill and the front office in NE know exactly what the number is Randy is looking for and while NE has proven it will pay some veteran players, it has also proven that it does not play the Redskins game of giving guys with limited time left in the league a big payday.

Rumor is they are also very happy with a young receiver named Brandon Tate and looking for ways to get him on the field. The kid returned a kickoff 103 yards for a TD Monday Night against against the Fins (granted, they had fans returning used beer cups for TDs against the Fins Monday but you get my point). They seem to think that he can be a very good player in the league and do so this year. Maybe not be Moss, per se but still very good. He is young (2nd year), hungry and not looking for a new contract. (BTW - he was a 3rd round draft pick).

So you are Bill and you are 3-1. Moss has not been producing this season like previous years and Brady doesn't appear to be looking for him as much. He wants a new contract that you have decided you are not going to give him (I assume they would have already if they were going to). And MN is willing to give you a 3 for him.

Who knows what they have planned either. Maybe they know who they think they will take with that 3. Maybe they needed that 3 to package up with something else to give to SD for Jackson, a guy who is much younger than Moss but still proven whom they might give an extension to in order to keep around.

*shrug*

Like I said to start, I see your points and I can agree with them. I'm sure there are some NE fans out there this morning thinking a lot like you do. Time will tell who is right.
 
Yes, you need a good balance. Free agents are not the devil. :) I agree.

But by the same token I think some of you are over-emphasizing the impact of the Franchise QB. A franchise QB can make you competitive, but he cannot make you a contender all by himself.

Look at Favre. When he went to the Jets they improved to 9-7. Very nice, but not exactly a top-tier team. The next year he went to the Vikings, a team that already had most of the other pieces in place. Suddenly they are in the NFCC game.

I'm saying that we don't want to be that 9-7 version, forever. And that is exactly how we've been trying to build teams, by emphasizing free agency over the draft, rather than finding that good balance.


You cite the Jets who drafted Mark Sanchez, who looks like the real deal in his second year in the league as an example against the franchise QB theory? Hmmm. Not what I would have gone with, my friend.

Your point on Favre is interesting. Favre did not play like a franchise QB in NY. Since they are in the AFC, I did not pay attention very much to the pieces they had around him, what happened, how many INTs he threw, etc. I will say that yes, Minny had a lot of pieces ready to go, but if you are suggesting Tavaris Jackson and Brett Favre are anywhere near the same QB, I think we need drug testing for the board. ;)

(I know you're not suggesting that, just went for a laugh :))
 
I'm right, Neo. Duh. :insane:

:)

I hear you, and given Moss's unique situation, I can understand why they traded him. And if they turn those draft picks around and trade for Jackson or someone else not even being considered right now in order to help Brady win now, good for them. This just seems like the Eagles' FO feeling they are smarter than everyone else getting rid of players before they are finished.

Sometimes, sometimes it may be better to hang onto a couple of those players and gamble that you can win it all. If you win it all, but then have a year or two of bloated salaries that are hitting the cap, hampering your ability to get players, is it worth it? I would argue yes it is.

Think about how much better NE's D would be with Richard Seymour this year. I know they got a first, and it is very difficult to argue with getting Oakland's first round draft pick any time. BUT, if they had Seymour and Moss, wouldn't they be right at the top of everyone's favorite lists in the AFC.

Now? First round game and exit is about the best they can hope for, imo. Pretty similar to the way their seasons have ended recently. Which is slightly better, but not much, than what Henry is arguing against.
 
You cite the Jets who drafted Mark Sanchez, who looks like the real deal in his second year in the league as an example against the franchise QB theory? Hmmm. Not what I would have gone with, my friend.

I'm not arguing against drafting a franchise QB. Where did you get that idea? :)

Hell, I'm not even against getting a veteran franchise QB.

What I am against is the notion that draft picks aren't worth much because they might not hit. I don't know if you've noticed, but veteran free agents don't always hit either. And they are a lot more expensive, and don't last as long when they DO hit. And in general, make less sense to use as the foundation of a successful franchise.

Just having a franchise QB, however acquired, doesn't change that, in my opinion.
 
I'm not arguing against drafting a franchise QB. Where did you get that idea? :)

Hell, I'm not even against getting a veteran franchise QB.

What I am against is the notion that draft picks aren't worth much because they might not hit. I don't know if you've noticed, but veteran free agents don't always hit either. And they are a lot more expensive, and don't last as long when they DO hit. And in general, make less sense to use as the foundation of a successful franchise.

Just having a franchise QB, however acquired, doesn't change that, in my opinion.


Underlines mine.

I think we're closer to each other's positions than either of us realize. You're not saying do nothing but draft, and I'm not saying do nothing but use free agents. The point of my book-length-snoozer post above was simply to point that out. The Pats seem to adhere mostly to the only draft theory, eschewing free agency for the most part. And I would argue it hasn't worked quite as well for them as most people think.

If I had my druthers (anybody know what a druther is, by the way?), I would see the Skins use a nice mix of both.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top