Wonky Stat of the Week:

[Lanky Livingston]

The Redskins are 5-1 when scoring 19 points or less, 0-4 when scoring over 20 points. This stat is particularly mind-bottling when you consider that if the Redskins offense had scored at least 20 points per game, we'd have finished with 12 wins each of the past 3 seasons. 20 points per game is not a lot in the NFL.

To me, this is a clear indication of the offense's struggles; when the defense plays well, the O can put just enough points on the board to win the game (except in the case of the Dallas & Chicago games, when the D needed to score the points to win), but when the game turns into a shootout, the Skins O just doesn't have the firepower to keep up. Is this a systemic problem? I don't think so - the Kyle Shanahan offense has been proven to be effective. I think this is a clear-cut indication that the offense lacks play makers. Yeah, yeah - any offense in the league would instantly upgrade with a guy like Andre Johnson in the mix; but that's kind of the point. With a few rare exceptions (Tom Brady's SB-winning Patriot teams, for example) good offenses have that game-breaking WR on the roster.

Could Vinny have been on the right path drafting 3 pass-catchers in the 2nd round a couple years ago? Possibly...but then again this team had so many holes in it, I think (as does the rest of the planet) 3-WRs was a huge mistake. But, we are beginning to see why these moves are made; why Joe Gibbs gave up 2 picks for Brandon Lloyd, why the Shanahans rolled the dice on 89 year-old Joey Galloway, or why TO continues to get jobs in the NFL.

The QB is king in this league for sure, but even the best QBs need someone to throw to. There are only so many Tom Bradys and Peyton Mannings...the rest of us need a Jerry Rice to look good.

 

[Cycleans]

Well said.

 

[Om]

I was less critical of the Redskins for that Thomas, Kelly, Davis draft than many. It may have been a little over the top, but that may be hindsight talking as much as anything.

The offense had been showing up for gunfights with knives for so long at that point that it made a certain kind of sense. And had either Thomas OR Kelly blossomed into a legit #1 receiver within a couple of years, it might have looked pretty aggressive and smart in retrospect.

Problem, of course, was that Thomas was whatever he was that simply didn't work, and Kelly, for all the great hands and spidery promise, simply cannot get on the field and at this point it would figure never will.

Davis, in an otherwise potent passing attack, could quite possilby be a poor man's Tony Gonzalez-type of impact player. If the Skins ever do land a legit #1 capable of altering defensive schemes a la Fitzgerald, Boldin or Moss, Davis could still emerge as a blue chip TE.

Particularly now that, unlike when he (and Thomas and Kelly) were drafted, the Redskins actually have legitimate NFL quarterbacking at their disposal ... for at least a while.

 

[Henry]

My problem with that draft was mostly Davis. We didn't need two TEs then. We don't need two now.

Fortunately he's a good player, but as we can see, because we already have a TE, Davis being good doesn't really matter all that much.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

we could have had calais campbell

 

[Jimbo]

My problem with that draft was mostly Davis. We didn't need two TEs then. We don't need two now.

Fortunately he's a good player, but as we can see, because we already have a TE, Davis being good doesn't really matter all that much.

I felt the same way about Davis and I didn't understand taking Thomas AND Kelly. If we were gonna take two receivers, I wanted one of them to be Desean Jackson. Oh well....

 

[Lanky Livingston]

we could have had calais campbell

Orakpo >>> Campbell.

IIRC, there were a lot of questions about Campbell's work ethic coming out of school, which is why he was even available in the 2nd round in the first place. Since he's come out, he had 7 sacks last year, and has 3 so far this year. Not exactly a terror.

 

[romberjo]

The justification for taking Thomas and Kelly at the top of the draft is unassailable:

1) Our defense is perennial top-10 and will undoubtedly remain excellent;

2) We desperately need a top WR to complement Santana--and receivers are notoriously hit-and-miss, so it makes sense to draft two high up b/c the odds are good that at least one will be a major contributor, and almost certain that at least one will be a solid addition.

Is anyone going to argue that there's any plausible counter-argument? I guess we'll have to wait a couple of years till the 2010 season or so to see if it pans out.

 

[Elephant]

The justification for taking Thomas and Kelly at the top of the draft is unassailable:

1) Our defense is perennial top-10 and will undoubtedly remain excellent;

2) We desperately need a top WR to complement Santana--and receivers are notoriously hit-and-miss, so it makes sense to draft two high up b/c the odds are good that at least one will be a major contributor, and almost certain that at least one will be a solid addition.

Is anyone going to argue that there's any plausible counter-argument? I guess we'll have to wait a couple of years till the 2010 season or so to see if it pans out.

Yes, there is a plausible argument. Our offensive line was on the down swing of their careers. Thomas had not played a full season in years, Jansen had definitely lost a step, Rabach was beginning to show signs of wear, and we had no significant backups to fill in when those guys went down!

Yes, we needed WR desperately, but more important than WR was the need to bolster and aging line. Take Thomas since he was the number one rated WR in that draft, then take at least one offensive lineman with the next pick, not Fred Davis! I like Sleepy, but we did not need him! Yoder was a good backup and better blocker than Davis. Then if you want, take Kelley but I still would have chosen 2 offensive lineman in that draft!

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Orakpo >>> Campbell.

IIRC, there were a lot of questions about Campbell's work ethic coming out of school, which is why he was even available in the 2nd round in the first place. Since he's come out, he had 7 sacks last year, and has 3 so far this year. Not exactly a terror.

he would be a stud at 3-4 end and he is pretty solid as a 4-3 as well.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Yes, there is a plausible argument. Our offensive line was on the down swing of their careers. Thomas had not played a full season in years, Jansen had definitely lost a step, Rabach was beginning to show signs of wear, and we had no significant backups to fill in when those guys went down!

Yes, we needed WR desperately, but more important than WR was the need to bolster and aging line. Take Thomas since he was the number one rated WR in that draft, then take at least one offensive lineman with the next pick, not Fred Davis! I like Sleepy, but we did not need him! Yoder was a good backup and better blocker than Davis. Then if you want, take Kelley but I still would have chosen 2 offensive lineman in that draft!

El, I think romberjo was poking fun at my thread a bit...he missed the point, but its okay. At least he was nice about it.

 

[Goaldeje]

he would be a stud at 3-4 end and he is pretty solid as a 4-3 as well.

We weren't running a 3-4 at the time, and as Lanky pointed out, there were numerous questions about his work ethic. As someone else said, I don't have a problem with the two WRs. The Sleepy move has always confounded me.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Lanky Livingston]

We weren't running a 3-4 at the time, and as Lanky pointed out, there were numerous questions about his work ethic. As someone else said, I don't have a problem with the two WRs. The Sleepy move has always confounded me.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Exactly. And he has never played in a 3-4, so his performance in that scheme is 100% speculation at this point.