Quarterback and Rebuilding

[Bulldog]

There have been a fair number of posters that have questioned how a team coming back from 4-12 could spend picks on a quarterback who has been in the league longer than Dan Snyder has owned the team?

The answer is actually remarkably simple - quarterback like a staff ace in the majors is a transormational player.

Some point to the Caps patience in drafting Alex Ovechkin and wonder why the Redskins don't just follow the draft path.

For one, the transition of a qb to the NFL is one of the most difficult in sports. Ovechkin as a rookie scored 52 goals and had 106 points for the Caps.

The Caps didn't wait on Ovechkin, he essentially waited 3 years on the team to bring in more talent.

There is no way a Jimmy Clausen or Colt McCoy would have anywhere near this kind of impact on the Redskins and that is assuming they eventually will be regular starting quarterbacks.

What if they are busts? What if they are like Rex Grossman 5 years from now?

Ironically enough it is my opinion that the Redskins have failed in the past decade in major part because the team did NOT go out and spend megabucks to acquire a successful NFL quarterback.

The team spent $10M on a safety and $40M on a DT, but they went cheap at qb and that really hurt them.

Other than Brunell's $7M bonus in 2004 it was Tony Banks, Shane Matthews, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell running the show.

Shanahan gets it. You START at quarterback and then build around him.

In this case I fully expect Washington to come out of the draft with a left tackle whether at #4 or by trading down.

I also expect another veteran signing over the summer when teams evaluate their draft picks and decide to release some vets who can still play the game.

But we now have in place the player that touches the ball on 100 percent of the snaps and tha player in McNabb has a track record not seen here since Joe Theismann broke his leg in 1985.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Henry]

BD, Ramsey and Campbell were first round picks. They were guys that the Redskins brought in to build around. Of course in both cases our front office was turning over so often that no team was ever actually built around either of them. I disagree with using those two as proof that you shouldn't attempt to find a QB through the draft as part of a long-term rebuilding plan. I'd be happy to point to guys like Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Brady, Rivers, Rothelisberger, Ryan, Flacco, Palmer, Sanchez and yes, McNabb as evidence to the contrary.

What we are doing now is what we always do to compensate for extremely high front office turnover: Bring in a name player on the downside of his career in order to rebuild on the fly.

I agree. You start with the QB. But building around one takes time, especially when you don't have a lot of draft picks. And now, because our starting QB is 33, time is a luxury we don't have.

 

[Bulldog]

On offense we have young wide receivers and tight ends. One or two of the backs will be productive. The balance of the offseason will be about the OL.

I agree that if the Redskins were picking #1 and there was an Elway or Manning available you take the player.

The Rams were going to hold up the Redskins to move to select Bradford and then you would have lost that #2 pick anyway as well as a pick in 2011.

And then where does the left tackle come from?

And is Bradford worth $45M guranteed?

What the Redskins did was acquire a pro bowl quarterback and still leave themselves in position to draft a pro bowl left tackle.

Aren't those the most important positions to fill in constructing an offense?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Goaldeje]

This entire debate comes down to how many years McNabb has left. If we only get 1-2 years, it is highly unlikely we win the SB in that time period, making the trade a huge bust for us. I think it is more likely we get 3-4 years, and contend for the playoffs the first two years, then the SB the 3rd and 4th years, making the trade a success for us.

Anything over 4 years is a bonus.

 

[Henry]

Bulldog,

I'm no draftnik and I'm not advocating spending a high pick this year on a QB. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your suggestion that our refusal to invest in a QB is the main reason we're chronically lousy. High player turnover, high coaching turnover and trading young for old is why we've been on the treadmill of suck for as long as we have. Our QB situation has merely been a symptom of that disease.

So our solution? Trade a draft pick for a QB that will most likely be gone or a backup in three years. High player turnover. Young for old. Here we go again.

 

[LizKauai]

There have been a fair number of posters that have questioned how a team coming back from 4-12 could spend picks on a quarterback who has been in the league longer than Dan Snyder has owned the team?

The answer is actually remarkably simple - quarterback like a staff ace in the majors is a transormational player.

Posted via BGO Mobile Device

The downside of having a transformational player is that when he goes down, so does the team.

I prefer a focused and unified unit- able to step up and carry on no matter what.

I'm not sold on McNabb's ability to play the whole season. But, hey...

HTTR!

 

[Henry]

This entire debate comes down to how many years McNabb has left. If we only get 1-2 years, it is highly unlikely we win the SB in that time period, making the trade a huge bust for us. I think it is more likely we get 3-4 years, and contend for the playoffs the first two years, then the SB the 3rd and 4th years, making the trade a success for us.

Anything over 4 years is a bonus.

Well, if we win a SB I'll shut up.

But it's more than that. I would like this team to actually try and build a perennial contender. Not a team that flashes for a year or two and then slides back into obscurity. I want a Dynasty. Or at the very least, a team with an Identity. The Steelers and Ravens punch you in the face. The Chargers have an explosive NFC East-style offense. The Packers beat you in the air and the Vikings beat you on the ground.

I want that here. I don't care what the hell it is anymore, but for the love of all that is holy, PICK something. Stop grabbing other team's leftovers and then telling us you had no choice. Bulldog's second post is classic Redskin 'we had no choice' talk. I know it by heart. Stop telling me why we can't build ourselves like every other team in the league does. I'm sick of hearing it.

Now it's still early in the offseason and a lot can happen. I'm not declaring this team, or this move, a failure by any means. But I do not agree, by any stretch of the imagination, that trading picks for McNabb is proof that things are now different at Redskin park. That is all.

 

[servumtuum]

Another way I'm looking at this is to look at the Iggles. They're pinning a lot of hopes on Kolb-if he busts then they have to get another QB-but there is an upside to their situation. Right now Philly is young-young as in I don't think they have anyone left on the roster who's over 29. Therefore, if Kolb doesn't pan out they have the ability to find a franchise QB with a not-too-old roster and a recent history of success to keep the fans from getting too restless too soon. The Redskins have a decade of frustration that , if not addressed now will, I think, casue the fan revolt of this past season to erupt into something the likes of which hasn't been seen in recent memory. Would I be able to wait five years more for another division title and playoff run? Maybe. Would the majority of Redskin fans? IMHO. hell no.

 

[Goaldeje]

edit: servumtuum, you snuck in there, I was referencing Henry.

^^I was talking to a friend of mine who follows the Vikings, and he made the comment that if this move had been made by Vinny et all, there would be blood in the streets, for the same reasons you are speaking of. I agreed with him. I am willing to cut Shanahan a little slack. I agree with you that building a perennial contender is the way to do it, but I don't think Shanny will be around 10 years. He wants to win now, and I'm OK with that.

An Eagles fan said to me the other day, laughingly, that now we can expect to be in the playoffs, but watch McNabb choke in the first round. If true, at least we would be in the playoffs. Given that we have made two trips in 10 years, baby steps are fine with me.

And who knows? Maybe, just maybe, the FO knows McNabb isn't a long term solution. Maybe they have a short term plan and a long term plan in place. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have to make the choice the Eagles just made, or the one the Chargers made a few years ago. Maybe they are planning on drafting a young QB next year or the year after, which will keep us competitive.

I guess what I'm saying Henry, is that you want us to be competitive for a long period of time. My argument is that you have to actually BE competitive in order to stay competitive. McNabb instantly makes us better, as does the addition of Shanahan. I am willing to trust the new regime that they have a plan to keep us competitive once we actually get there. 4-12 wasn't there.

 

[Goaldeje]

Another way I'm looking at this is to look at the Iggles. They're pinning a lot of hopes on Kolb-if he busts then they have to get another QB-but there is an upside to their situation. Right now Philly is young-young as in I don't think they have anyone left on the roster who's over 29. Therefore, if Kolb doesn't pan out they have the ability to find a franchise QB with a not-too-old roster and a recent history of success to keep the fans from getting too restless too soon. The Redskins have a decade of frustration that , if not addressed now will, I think, casue the fan revolt of this past season to erupt into something the likes of which hasn't been seen in recent memory. Would I be able to wait five years more for another division title and playoff run? Maybe. Would the majority of Redskin fans? IMHO. hell no.

Agreed. I think the FO could survive one, maybe two down years, but more than that is asking a lot. If they pick Bradford or Claussen, and three years later it appears as though we made a poor choice, the FO, and Snyder have some serious problems.

The Eagles have the luxury of being able to weather some down years, which I think they will have with Kolb.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Well, if we win a SB I'll shut up.

But it's more than that. I would like this team to actually try and build a perennial contender. Not a team that flashes for a year or two and then slides back into obscurity. I want a Dynasty. Or at the very least, a team with an Identity. The Steelers and Ravens punch you in the face. The Chargers have an explosive NFC East-style offense. The Packers beat you in the air and the Vikings beat you on the ground.

I want that here. I don't care what the hell it is anymore, but for the love of all that is holy, PICK something. Stop grabbing other team's leftovers and then telling us you had no choice. Bulldog's second post is classic Redskin 'we had no choice' talk. I know it by heart. Stop telling me why we can't build ourselves like every other team in the league does. I'm sick of hearing it.

Now it's still early in the offseason and a lot can happen. I'm not declaring this team, or this move, a failure by any means. But I do not agree, by any stretch of the imagination, that trading picks for McNabb is proof that things are now different at Redskin park. That is all.

I mostly agree with this...I'm sick of business as usual. However, maybe Shanahan and Allen truly believe the team is close? Maybe they trade Haynesworth and Campbell for picks, and still stock up? We have to see how it plays out before we can criticize.

Another important thing to remember: Shanahan's system doesn't necessarily need high-round draft picks on the OLine. Zone-blocking OL are smaller and lighter, and as a result, tend to drop further in the draft. So if we all agree its a no-brainer to get Okung in the first, Shanahan could take a couple guys that fit his system in the later rounds and it would be a-okay.

I will say, Shanahan coaching McNabb is eerily similar to Shanahan coaching Elway, which gets me a little moist.

 

[Billfishead]

Well, if we win a SB I'll shut up.

But it's more than that. I would like this team to actually try and build a perennial contender. Not a team that flashes for a year or two and then slides back into obscurity. I want a Dynasty. Or at the very least, a team with an Identity. The Steelers and Ravens punch you in the face. The Chargers have an explosive NFC East-style offense. The Packers beat you in the air and the Vikings beat you on the ground.

I want that here. I don't care what the hell it is anymore, but for the love of all that is holy, PICK something. Stop grabbing other team's leftovers and then telling us you had no choice. Bulldog's second post is classic Redskin 'we had no choice' talk. I know it by heart. Stop telling me why we can't build ourselves like every other team in the league does. I'm sick of hearing it.

Now it's still early in the offseason and a lot can happen. I'm not declaring this team, or this move, a failure by any means. But I do not agree, by any stretch of the imagination, that trading picks for McNabb is proof that things are now different at Redskin park. That is all.

You have to believe there is a method to the madness of Shanahan/Allen. In the past 10 years there has been plenty madness and NO method.

Just maybe they believe there wasn't a QB in this draft,that fit what they were looking for. Maybe they have their eye on someone for next year. Who knows, but I can tell you that I am a lot more comfortable with Shanahan/Allen calling the shots than I have been since Bobby Beatherd left.

These next few years will be a lot closer to the Gibbs I era in success, than anything we have seen since then.

 

[Boone]

I think being depressed and cynical with a brand new coaching staff and new team yet to play a down is not the way to start out a new Redskins era. I'm not a McNabb fan, but I've got to muster some optimism.

 

[Pravda]

bulldog--I always thought the conventional wisdom was that you should, if possible, build through the lines and that if the OL and DL are good enough, it almost doesn't matter how good or bad your QB is?

Are you in essence refuting the conventional wisdom (assuming I've got it right)?

 

[Goaldeje]

bulldog--I always thought the conventional wisdom was that you should, if possible, build through the lines and that if the OL and DL are good enough, it almost doesn't matter how good or bad your QB is?

Are you in essence refuting the conventional wisdom (assuming I've got it right)?

I'm not Bulldog, hope you don't mind...

I would argue that there is another school of thought that says that a franchise QB is what is needed to succeed in the NFL. Yes, the 2000 Ravens dispute that, but name another three examples. Most of the teams winning the SB have a franchise QB: Brees, Roethlisburger, E Manning, P Manning, Brady, B. Johnson, Dilfer, Warner, Elway, Favre, Aikman, Young from the last 17 years. Dilfer, Johnson and E Manning are the only three who jump out as not being franchise QBs, E Manning being somewhat debatable.

It's a chicken/egg argument, you can say that a great QB makes an average line look better, and vice-versa.

IMO, you need both. We got a franchise QB for 2 years, maybe more (hopefully more). Our LT we should be drafting #4 (unless trading down). That's not bad, imo.

 

[Pravda]

goaldeje--I'd never mind your reply--good to talk Redskins with you again.

My only thought on this goes to the counter-argument that you raise, that a truly excellent QB can only be excellent if he has the OL to give him the time needed to excel. And the more important the OL the less gifted the QB...

I don't know enough about football to say conclusively one way or another what the right answer is--

But my gut feeling (supported, I'd argue, by the Redskins Super Bowl winning teams) is that if you have a great OL, you can get by with a decent QB and you can dominate with a good to great QB.

 

[Bulldog]

once again, I think you have to look at what the McNabb trade allowed us to do - namely, to come away in April with a starting quarterback AND a potential pro bowl LT to replace Chris Samuels.

if the Redskins had moved up to draft Bradford they would have come away with little else from this draft other than Sam and he might have been sitting for most of 2010.

if the Redskins had sat at #4 and say taken Clausen and then drafted Roger Saffold or Vladimir Ducasse in Round 2, would the team really be better off?

THAT is the question you have to ask yourself.

 

[Goaldeje]

But my gut feeling (supported, I'd argue, by the Redskins Super Bowl winning teams) is that if you have a great OL, you can get by with a decent QB and you can dominate with a good to great QB.

Agreed. However, I think the other part of this equation is that a true franchise QB can win without a dominating line, or supporting cast. The Steelers won two years ago with a decent, not great line. Arizona made it to the SB against the Steelers with a good, not great line.

We had a chance to land a franchise QB. Sure, we may only have him for two years, which would suck. But we would have been gambling on a draft pick anyway. Who knows how Bradford would have turned out, and as Bulldog has pointed out, we probably wouldn't have been able to address the O-line at all had we traded up to get him.

I hate the move b/c I am conditioned to hate McNabb. Once I am able to look at things objectively , I like the move a great deal.

 

[stevenaa]

You have to believe there is a method to the madness of Shanahan/Allen. In the past 10 years there has been plenty madness and NO method.

Just maybe they believe there wasn't a QB in this draft,that fit what they were looking for. Maybe they have their eye on someone for next year. Who knows, but I can tell you that I am a lot more comfortable with Shanahan/Allen calling the shots than I have been since Bobby Beatherd left.

These next few years will be a lot closer to the Gibbs I era in success, than anything we have seen since then.

Except this appears to be the same madness we've been subjected too since Snyder took over. I don't know why anyone would think the same course of action is going to lead to a different destination. Hopefully it works out but I just don't have the will to give the benefit of the doubt any longer. I want a young team to be built up together and be perenniel a contender. We've bitched for years that crapping away draft picks has been one of many huge flaws in how this team is managed. Here we go again.

 

[Henry]

I think being depressed and cynical with a brand new coaching staff and new team yet to play a down is not the way to start out a new Redskins era. I'm not a McNabb fan, but I've got to muster some optimism.

I may be cynical, but I'm not depressed.

We can certainly rationalize anything the team does now by saying "Shanahan's smart and a great coach and that makes this a good move." I can't argue with that. He is a good coach. Hopefully every move he makes will be a good one.

And there is a part of me excited at the prospect of Shanahan finding his new Elway. I admit it. And when McNabb takes the field for the Burgundy and Gold this September I'll be as juiced up as the rest of you.

However, you gotta bend over backwards and sideways and inside out to come up with a way to suggest that it's BETTER to rebuild a team around an old QB than a young one. That it's smart to trade youth for age. That the reason the Redskins have struggled is because they've ignored the QB position.

All of that is crazy-talk in my opinion. Trying to make the deal sound better and smarter than it is. That's Redskin PR department material.

This is a smart move because Shanahan made it and he's smart. Go with that. That's the best way to look at this. Not '4-12 teams with crappy offenses shouldn't draft a QB because it's too risky.'