The Redskins in the playoffs

[Burgold]

Let's say the chips fall for us. We get some lucky bounces for once and the Redskins behind Rex Grossman manage to get the 'skins to 9-7 or even 10-6, we get to the playoffs this year as a wildcard, but we are booted out in the first round. Would you be happy? Would you rather the Redskins' suck and meet the Bleacher Report expectation of 1-15 so we can get that 5 star qb prospect?

What do you hope for this team in 2011?

[LetThePointsSoar]

Just want to see progress - and I'm of the mindset that doesn't care about the 2011 draft - just focus on the team we have, continue the youth movement, and build the core we're putting together. I think we're good enough to fall anywhere from 7-9 to 10-6 this season, and am really looking forward to it.

[Burgold]

Cool. I just get the sense that there is this pervading sense of defeatism masquerading as realism that has swept our fan base.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Cool. I just get the sense that there is this pervading sense of defeatism masquerading as realism that has swept our fan base.

Definitely agree. Disheartening and downright exhausting at times.

[Riggo#44]

Let's say the chips fall for us. We get some lucky bounces for once and the Redskins behind Rex Grossman manage to get the 'skins to 9-7 or even 10-6, we get to the playoffs this year as a wildcard, but we are booted out in the first round. Would you be happy? Would you rather the Redskins' suck and meet the Bleacher Report expectation of 1-15 so we can get that 5 star qb prospect?

What do you hope for this team in 2011?

I want to see youth reign this year, even if it costs us a couple of meaningless wins. I am going to go out on a limb and say we aren't making the playoffs. I really want to see production from Kerrigan, Hankerson, Helu and Jenkins specifically with improvement from T. Williams, Rak and the interior OL. I also want to see Fred Davis start. It hurts to say, but I think he brings more as a receiver than Cooley (and I love Cooley).

Here is the problem with eeking into the playoffs -- it sets us at 2007 again: a mediocre team without a QB. Which means we'll have to trade up to get one of the Big Three next year. While I am glad they passed on Bright-Shiney Gabbert (who isn't going to be good), it's really hard for me to root for a non-Cerrato constructed team to do poorly...

I guess we'll see where the chips fall.

EDIT: While I don't think we'll be very good, we are definitely better than the 1-15 -- 4-12 range some idiots are predicting!

[Oldfan]

I can't answer your poll because you didn't define "progress." I would expect many voters to define it as seven wins or more. My definition would be building a much stronger roster of good, young players -- regardless of the number of wins this season. That would please me.

[Chachie]

I want to see the Redskins establish good line play and I want to see their 2010, 2011 draft picks emerge as contributors. The wins will follow shortly behind those 2 factors IMHO.

[Mursilis]

Cool. I just get the sense that there is this pervading sense of defeatism masquerading as realism that has swept our fan base.

And given all of this team's recent success, that's just so out-of-place! :rolleyes:

I'd just like to see this team win as many games as they can, and STOP trading away draft picks for other teams' used-up players. That, and no more 38-y.o. skill players - give some young guy a shot! They found one Anthony Armstrong, so maybe they can find another!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Going to the playoffs is fun.

I like football because it is fun.

So, yes.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I want to see youth reign this year, even if it costs us a couple of meaningless wins. I am going to go out on a limb and say we aren't making the playoffs. I really want to see production from Kerrigan, Hankerson, Helu and Jenkins specifically with improvement from T. Williams, Rak and the interior OL.

I agree with this. If we can make the playoffs playing a relatively young team, I don't care who is at QB and I'd love it. However, if we were to make the playoffs behind exceptional performances from guys on their last legs, then it would feel like a swan song.

Put it this way...I'd take 6-10 and promise from rookies and younger veterans over 10-6 and a playoff berth from guys with only a year or two left. The good news is that I don't believe we have too many older guys who could carry a team. So, if we were to make the playoffs in 2011 it would almost have to come from our youth.

[Burgold]

I can't answer your poll because you didn't define "progress." I would expect many voters to define it as seven wins or more. My definition would be building a much stronger roster of good, young players -- regardless of the number of wins this season. That would please me.

In this scenario, the Redskins make the playoffs with either 9 or 10 wins. They lose in the Wild Card. Your question was answered in the OP. I'm not going to give out phony stats for all of our players.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 08:54 AM ----------


I agree with this. If we can make the playoffs playing a relatively young team, I don't care who is at QB and I'd love it. However, if we were to make the playoffs behind exceptional performances from guys on their last legs, then it would feel like a swan song.

Put it this way...I'd take 6-10 and promise from rookies and younger veterans over 10-6 and a playoff berth from guys with only a year or two left. The good news is that I don't believe we have too many older guys who could carry a team. So, if we were to make the playoffs in 2011 it would almost have to come from our youth.

This is the kind of answer I was hoping for. It actually responds to the question. I'm pretty much on this boat too.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This is the kind of answer I was hoping for. It actually responds to the question. I'm pretty much on this boat too.

Nice...do I win?? :ols:

I will say this...if we decide to move forward with a veteran team, then I'm all in. I don't want us to struggle to learn a lesson or lose games to prompt a rebuild. The second we start the season, I care about wins and the playoffs until we're eliminated from contention.

[Burgold]

You win my temporary admiration. :silly:

I'm pretty much the same way. I want us to win every single game. During the season, I'm in the forest and can't look at the big forest, so I study each of the trees. After the season, I can reflect on other issues. More, I see more good teams getting better than bad teams becoming great. So, I want this team to climb. I do want the youth to lead that charge (as they kind of did after we permanently benched McNabb), but I want to win.

Now, I don't want us to sacrifice our future a bunch of one year rentals. First, we're not in the place to make that deal. Second, that almost never works for anybody. The big winners of the Herchel Walker trade... certainly wasn't Minnesota. The big winners of the Brett Farve sweepstakes was not the Jets.

[LetThePointsSoar]

I will say this...if we decide to move forward with a veteran team, then I'm all in. I don't want us to struggle to learn a lesson or lose games to prompt a rebuild. The second we start the season, I care about wins and the playoffs until we're eliminated from contention.

How I also feel every year as well. I don't care who the players are if we have a legitimate shot at a playoff run & even further. But as you stated earlier, if we get into the first round and are booted immediately with team chock full of guys on their last legs, it feels like a worthless swan song with no hope at a championship. Thankfully it will be the youth that propel us there if we make a run at all, so here's to hoping for a 9+ win season...

[Riggo#44]

Nice...do I win?? :ols:

I will say this...if we decide to move forward with a veteran team, then I'm all in. I don't want us to struggle to learn a lesson or lose games to prompt a rebuild. The second we start the season, I care about wins and the playoffs until we're eliminated from contention.


Well, since you agreed with ME, I think I win :)

[jsharrin55]

Once the season starts I won't care if Larry Johnson and not so FWP are on the team, I'll cheer for wins because I'm a ****ing Redskins fan. **I'll ***** that they're on the team, but know I can't control it** I don't believe at this point we have a 9-7 team in us and believe that a top 3 QB should be within our reach. I'd be happier with your scenario if it was Beck that stepped up as a player, because Grossman will make us little more than a one and done kinda team.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Well, since you agreed with ME, I think I win :)

Yeah...I never win threads. The Internet is tough!

[The Tris]

This is the kind of answer I was hoping for. It actually responds to the question. I'm pretty much on this boat too.

I'm not sure what choice this scenerio corresponds with.

"Win, Baby, Win" seems like an all out win now option with massive FA spending.

Your definition of "Just want to see progress" (the Redskins make the playoffs with either 9 or 10 wins. They lose in the Wild Card.) seems equally tied to success being defined solely by winning games in the short term - I'd say this would involve significant finger-in-the-dike acquisitions.

So I guess "Want to see progress, but don't want to jeopardize a high draft pick for mediocrity" is the best case scenerio for me - where we are more concerned with building a team for 2012-2014 than simply building a team with the primary goal being getting 9 or 10 wins immediately.

[Burgold]

I think this is how I break the list down. Others can interpret differently.

Win baby win-- the only thing that matters to me is the W. Everything else is irrelevent.

Just want to see progress-- if we get into the playoffs and lose or even get blown out, but we're developing players, and the players and coaches are really starting to gel together that's what I most want to see

Progress II-- I care about the youth movement. I want our pups to play and improve, but mostly, I think we're really far away and I'd rather accumulate top picks rather than wins at this point. Developing the future matters more than winning now.

Lose, baby, lose-- the only way we'll win is if we lose now and get that top pick. Without a top qb prospect we'll never get anywhere. I don't care about edging into the playoffs this year. I want the ring and we'll never get the ring without drafting Superman.

[tex]

Let's say the chips fall for us. We get some lucky bounces for once and the Redskins behind Rex Grossman manage to get the 'skins to 9-7 or even 10-6, we get to the playoffs this year as a wildcard, but we are booted out in the first round. Would you be happy? Would you rather the Redskins' suck and meet the Bleacher Report expectation of 1-15 so we can get that 5 star qb prospect?

What do you hope for this team in 2011?

The future is uncertain. Would like to see each and every Redskin play their guts out and let the chips fall where they may. If that means one and done in the playoffs so be it. Losing now for perceived future benefit is a sucker play.

Win, baby, win.

[KingGibbs]

Playoffs are out of the question with this current roster. As a matter of fact, with the current roster, I could see us in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes.

Of course this is subject to change with the right peices added via FA, but even then I would consider a .500 record over-acheiving.

To answer your question? It's a bit silly to ask a Redskins fan where they "hope " this team will be. Of course we all want them to go 19-0.;) The question should be realistically where do you expect this team to be in 2011.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Playoffs are out of the question with this current roster. As a matter of fact, with the current roster, I could see us in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes.

Of course this is subject to change with the right peices added via FA, but even then I would consider a .500 record over-acheiving.

To answer your question? It's a bit silly to ask a Redskins fan where they "hope " this team will be. Of course we all want them to go 19-0.;) The question should be realistically where do you expect this team to be in 2011.

But that wasn't the question...the OP was posing a theoretical question. If you want to pose a realistic expectation question, you can probably start your own thread for that.

[KingGibbs]

But that wasn't the question...the OP was posing a theoretical question. If you want to pose a realistic expectation question, you can probably start your own thread for that.

Umm read my whole post. I'm pretty certain I answered his "theoretical" question. K?

[The Tris]

Win baby win-- the only thing that matters to me is the W. Everything else is irrelevent.

Just want to see progress-- if we get into the playoffs and lose or even get blown out, but we're developing players, and the players and coaches are really starting to gel together that's what I most want to see

Progress II-- I care about the youth movement. I want our pups to play and improve, but mostly, I think we're really far away and I'd rather accumulate top picks rather than wins at this point. Developing the future matters more than winning now.

Lose, baby, lose-- the only way we'll win is if we lose now and get that top pick. Without a top qb prospect we'll never get anywhere. I don't care about edging into the playoffs this year. I want the ring and we'll never get the ring without drafting Superman.

Good explanation. I'll take it one step farther, showing the priorties of the choices as I see them:

Win, Baby, Win: Priority 1: Win Now, Priority 2: There is no priority 2

Just see some progress: Priority 1: Win Games, Priority 2: Build for the Future

Progress II: Prority 1: Build for the Future, Priority 2: Win Games

Lose, Baby, Lose: Priority 1: Build for the Future, Priority 2: There is no priority 2

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Umm read my whole post. I'm pretty certain I answered his "theoretical" question. K?

Did you? In his hypothetical scenario, what outcome would you want? I don't believe 19-0 was an option.

[SkinsHokieFan]

9-7 and a first round loss would only work for me if it is primarily on the backs of our young guys.

If Kerrigan, Orakpo, Landry, Hankerson, Helu, Trent Williams, Niles Paul are all key contributors to this, I could live with it.

If it is the result of a career year from Rex Grossman and Santana Moss, I would be livid

[scruffylookin]

I agree with SHF.

While I want the Redskins to be in a position to draft an elite prospect at QB next year because I feel that is what will ultimately be best for the long term health and success of this franchise, if the Redskins do somehow get to 10-6 with young players playing great ball then I guess this team is much closer than I thought and I'd have fun with it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If it is the result of a career year from Rex Grossman and Santana Moss, I would be livid

Livid?

I understand your point of view (and actually agree that I'd prefer younger players lead the charge this year). But could you really be livid if any Redskin team made the playoffs? Maybe it's not what you think will ultimately help them long-term and maybe you would prefer to take three steps backwards in order to move forward...but I think you're crossing into insanity if you'd actually root for a Redskin team to lose games once the season begins.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Livid?

I understand your point of view (and actually agree that I'd prefer younger players lead the charge this year). But could you really be livid if any Redskin team made the playoffs? Maybe it's not what you think will ultimately help them long-term and maybe you would prefer to take three steps backwards in order to move forward...but I think you're crossing into insanity if you'd actually root for a Redskin team to lose games once the season begins.

Under the second scenario I painted, a playoff run led by Moss, Grossman and lets say London Fletcher and OJ playing the big roles, yea I'd be pretty upset because I know it wouldn't be a foundation for better things. Instead we just went on a run with guys on their last legs and cost ourselves a high round draft pick, which would help us further down the line.

It would basically be the 2007 Redskins in the long run. A team on its last legs making one final push and maxing out at 9 wins.

This franchise needs to get back to the level of 11-12+ wins a season. I am done with maxing out at 9 or 10 wins every 5-6 years

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Under the second scenario I painted, a playoff run led by Moss, Grossman and lets say London Fletcher and OJ playing the big roles, yea I'd be pretty upset because I know it wouldn't be a foundation for better things. Instead we just went on a run with guys on their last legs and cost ourselves a high round draft pick, which would help us further down the line.

It would basically be the 2007 Redskins in the long run. A team on its last legs making one final push and maxing out at 9 wins.

This franchise needs to get back to the level of 11-12+ wins a season. I am done with maxing out at 9 or 10 wins every 5-6 years

Right...read my replies in here...I completely understand and would want success to be due to our youngsters. No problem with your outlook on that type of run. But, once the team is picked and the players are in their roles, don't you just default to rooting for the Redskins? And, let's say the skins are 9-6 with those older vets and playing in Philly to end this season. Win and they are in, lose and they go home. Are you hoping that group of veterans fail in that situation? I am mostly curious about your use of "livid" almost as though you'd root against a veteran Redskin team rather than just prefer they be younger.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Right...read my replies in here...I completely understand and would want success to be due to our youngsters. No problem with your outlook on that type of run. But, once the team is picked and the players are in their roles, don't you just default to rooting for the Redskins? And, let's say the skins are 9-6 with those older vets and playing in Philly to end this season. Win and they are in, lose and they go home. Are you hoping that group of veterans fail in that situation? I am mostly curious about your use of "livid" almost as though you'd root against a veteran Redskin team rather than just prefer they be younger.

I hate to use the term "root against the team" because overall I am not rooting against the team.

In my mind I have already punted the 2011 season. I expect it to be bad, very bad, which is ok by me. And in fact, I hope it is for the long term plan.

Your scenario of 9-6 against Philly, of course at that point I would want the win. But I am starting in the default position that we need to lose as much as possible this year

[Sticksboi05]

You do not lose on purpose. I'm sorry, that is detestable. Winning starts with a winning attitude.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I hate to use the term "root against the team" because overall I am not rooting against the team.

In my mind I have already punted the 2011 season. I expect it to be bad, very bad, which is ok by me. And in fact, I hope it is for the long term plan.

Your scenario of 9-6 against Philly, of course at that point I would want the win. But I am starting in the default position that we need to lose as much as possible this year

OK. Interesting, but I understand your point.

Do you actually want them to lose in 2011 because you think they need to in order to get better (draft Luck, etc.) or are you just saying that you are OK with them losing as long as they play young players? I think there is a distinction there...

For example, as you mentioned, a successful season on the backs of our rookies and younger vets (even with someone like Grossman or Beck at QB) is something we could build on and sustain for years.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 11:07 AM ----------


You do not lose on purpose. I'm sorry, that is detestable. Winning starts with a winning attitude.

In fairness...the team certainly shouldn't ever lose on purpose. But a fan (SHF for example) thinking losses are better in the long run is different than a team employing that strategy.

[Mursilis]

This franchise needs to get back to the level of 11-12+ wins a season. I am done with maxing out at 9 or 10 wins every 5-6 years

You may want to re-evaluate your rooting interests then. The last 11+ win season was . . . I don't even remember.

[Burgold]

I chose Grossman in this scenario over Beck for exactly this reason. Although, I kind of see both as equals. Grossman has had more of a shot, but in many ways is still that young qb that flashes a lot and then makes you hit your head. If he could become a Kerry Colins or Rich Gannon who sudddenly rises into that upper tier of qbs, he could stay there for a while. He hasn't absorbed that many hits and still has tread on the tires. Same with Beck, if he somehow turned out to be Trent Green or the Cowboy Choker. A guy who never really got his chance for whatever reason and then took off once he did.

Still, I don't see playing Grossman as the same as playing McNabb or evenn luring Brett out of retirement for one more swing of the bat. Those are clearly homerun/strikeout swings.

Anyway, I understand both views and that's part of why this thread was started. My dream scenario is that all the pups or most of them just really start clicking and that second year 3-4 magic happens. The team starts getting good and believing in itself. If we got to the playoffs, even if we were trounced and sent back... I'd feel pretty good going forward. Mind you, I'd be happier if it were on the backs of Armstrong, Banks, Torrain, and some of the rooks, but I don't really mind if some reclamation projects like Grossman suddenly make good.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

IDK, I love watching the team win obviously buuuuttt idk if in the long run us going one and done will be good. If its all of our young guys doing it then hell yea...if its a bunch of older vets then no.

[The Tris]

You may want to re-evaluate your rooting interests then. The last 11+ win season was . . . I don't even remember.

So because we haven't done it in a while means we shouldn't set our goals and expectations to that level?

Sheesh, thats worse than wanting to tank the season.

The fact that the vast majority of fans think 10 wins is about as much as one can hope and the goal we should set speaks to an incredible lack of vision, one that is seemingly shared by the ownership of this team.

[Sticksboi05]

So because we haven't done it in a while means we shouldn't set our goals and expectations to that level?

Sheesh, thats worse than wanting to tank the season.

The fact that the vast majority of fans think 10 wins is about as much as one can hope and the goal we should set speaks to an incredible lack of vision, one that is seemingly shared by the ownership of this team.

Are you on crack? Get real, this team cannot win 12 games. They are a mess that is slowly becoming unraveled. It's called being realistic.

[The Tris]

Are you on crack? Get real, this team cannot win 12 games. They are a mess that is slowly becoming unraveled. It's called being realistic.

This team can not win 12 games, you are right.

However, the goal of this team should be to build a team that wins 12+ games every season.

You go about that goal by thinking long term and about the bigger picture.

Not by focusing on immediate gratification.

This team's and this fanbase's goals and expectations need to be elevated above the quick fix, microwaved roster success of the past decade.

[Mursilis]

So because we haven't done it in a while means we shouldn't set our goals and expectations to that level?

Sheesh, thats worse than wanting to tank the season.

The fact that the vast majority of fans think 10 wins is about as much as one can hope and the goal we should set speaks to an incredible lack of vision, one that is seemingly shared by the ownership of this team.

I set my goals and expectations at 19-0 every season, but the team never seems to cooperate. Sadly, I have no control over that fact, and none of us fans do. This may come as a shock to you.

Regardless, you're addressing the wrong person. I'm not the one who said I was "done" with this team peaking at 9-10 wins per season.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Are you on crack? Get real, this team cannot win 12 games. They are a mess that is slowly becoming unraveled. It's called being realistic.

This team cannot. This franchise should be striving to.

[The Tris]

I set my goals and expectations at 19-0 every season

Setting a goal of 19 wins per season is hardly a realistic goal.

I am taking about goals that are both realistic and attainable.

Winning 12+ games per season is a goal which is both.

[MLSKINS]

:doh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I


I am not talking about handicapping the future to do so, but if my team is not playing to win the game, I don't want them to be my team anymore.

[The Tris]

The twice fired Edwards, he of the career 56-77 record, is a really good motivational speaker.

[Burgold]

This team can't win 12 games next season? Can't? I think the percentage chance of us winning 12 games is far larger than zero. It might be as high as 4%. Maybe even 10%. Still, it ain't impossible. Just really, really, really unlikely.

Absolutists annoy me.

[MLSKINS]

The twice fired Edwards, he of the career 56-77 record, is a really good motivational speaker.
Mock the man all you want, but you can't mock the message.

Try telling London Fletcher, Orakpo, Moss, Cooley, and other players on the team that we should lose games so we can get a better draft pick.

WE DON"T EVEN KNOW HOW THE TEAM WILL PERFORM!!!! And we are already talking about tanking the season. What happened to the fans of the Redskins?

[pjfootballer]

I want to see progress from the younger players on both sides of the ball. I always want to win every game, but I can honestly go through a poor season record wise as long as I see the team fighting every week and see the team get better in areas besides the scoreboard.

Lets face it, we have been needing a franchise QB for a loooooonnnnnggggg time. I don't want us to tank it, but I'd rather finish 5-11 and below and get a chance at one of the QBs, then to have another mediocre season and lose out on getting a future franchise QB.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 12:11 PM ----------


You may want to re-evaluate your rooting interests then. The last 11+ win season was . . . I don't even remember.

1991-1992 when we won 14 games. Yes, it's been that frigging long. I believe we are the only team besides the expansion (can you even call them that anymore) Texans (never had 11 wins), Browns (1995 had 11 wins- who were reinvented as an expansion team) and Lions (I think they last had 11 wins the same year we did when we beat them for the NFCCG) that have failed to win 11 games or more over the last 15 years.

[Alcoholic Zebra]

Hmm, I did Win, Baby, Win because that's what the team needs, the fan base needs, and the players need. I already feel like we're going with a youth movement. However, the "I just wanna see progress" thing also works, that implies that we're better than 6-10, and our youth is progressing. I feel like both categories feature youth progressing and more wins than last season. I went with the Win, Baby, Win, since building a winning culture in the lockerroom and fanbase is incredibly important. We can't let your youngsters get used to a losing season.

That said. I think our roster is much better than it was last season. MUCH better. Our schedule is easier. Our defense has far fewer holes.

The following guys started for us at the beginning of last season:
Derrick Dockery - 30 years old
Joey Galloway - 39 years old
Andre Carter - 31 years old
Maake Kemoeatu - 31 years old
Artis Hicks - 32 years old
Donovan McNabb - 34 years old

We'll have improved at every one of those positions (with either talent or how they fit in our scheme). So yes, we've gotten a lot younger, but in this case, the youth is better as well.

[NLC1054]

Cool. I just get the sense that there is this pervading sense of defeatism masquerading as realism that has swept our fan base.

Truer words have never been spoken, sir.

A lot of the negativity out there is, essentially, a defense mechanism for what could be a hard season, even though there's more than a few bright spots.

I just want my team to do well. And yes, I want them to win more than I want them to lose. If they lose, I want them to fight hard and be in the game most of the time. But I'm not sitting here saying "well at least if we lose we'll get a top pick." I want them to do well, because I think positive momentum is always better than sitting around halfway hoping they stagnate.

Also, this fanbase has single handily made me despise Andrew Luck.

[pjfootballer]

Setting a goal of 19 wins per season is hardly a realistic goal.

I am taking about goals that are both realistic and attainable.

Winning 12+ games per season is a goal which is both.

I have the same goal of 12 wins per year. Unfortunately most of this fanbase looks back at the last 20 years and wants to "hail" the 8-8, 9-7, 10-6 seasons as some sort of "great acheivement." I watched the team during the their four SB seasons. 10-6 and a wild card appearance was garbage during that time period and it should be the same now. I understand this team will have to grow and build towards those 12 win seasons. I'd like to see a progression with this team from 6-10, to 9-7 to 11-5 to 13-3 sort of scenerio. I also realize the team may have to go down from 6-10 this season in order build back up to 12+ wins. I can deal with that if I see progress. I hate being 5-11 to 9-7 and occasionally make a playoff appearance.

[The Tris]

This team can't win 12 games next season? Can't? I think the percentage chance of us winning 12 games is far larger than zero. It might be as high as 4%. Maybe even 10%. Still, it ain't impossible. Just really, really, really unlikely.

Absolutists annoy me.

It is highly unlikely that this team wins 12 games this season.

It is also highly unlikely we will build a perennial contender that averages 12 win/season if we follow a win now offseason strategy.

Better?

[Burgold]

Yup. lol

:cheers:

I'm not a cup overflowing guy, but I am a cup half full guy. I'd like us to have that team that's perenially in the Superbowl hunt for about 5-7 years. One question though is what comes first, the winning or the players. Sometimes, I think winning begets winning because it inspires players and coaches to push that much harder and the new guys coming in realize there's a standard they need to maintain or improve upon. Losing begets laziness. So, I'd rather push then hope we get that miracle guy. Afterall, even Batman can't do it alone. Alfred is the real hero of that comic book ;)

[NLC1054]

It is highly unlikely that this team wins 12 games this season.

It is also highly unlikely we will build a perennial contender that averages 12 win/season if we follow a win now offseason strategy.

Better?

Also worth noting that some people's definition of "win-now" are different than others.

[grhqofb5]

I'm not interested in losing. Win all games. That being said, chances are slim. I'd never encourage tanking a season to get a high draft pick.

[The Tris]

Also worth noting that some people's definition of "win-now" are different than others.

As I have not seen you define win now in your time here, would you care to share your definition of what it means to have a win now strategy?

[LetThePointsSoar]

I'd never encourage tanking a season to get a high draft pick.

Precisely. Although few on here come out and bluntly admit it, there seems to be so many references recently to being ok with us having an awful season to be in the lottery. The point too often missed is that who is to say next year's draft is even anything special? Imagine teams wanting to tank the 1997 season just to be in the running to draft Ryan Leaf? smh

[Rocky21]

I have to admit the title of this thread threw me off a bit. :ols

[pjfootballer]

Precisely. Although few on here come out and bluntly admit it, there seems to be so many references recently to being ok with us having an awful season to be in the lottery. The point too often missed is that who is to say next year's draft is even anything special? Imagine teams wanting to tank the 1997 season just to be in the running to draft Ryan Leaf? smh

Alot of us won't be openly rooting to lose games, rather we are saying that at the end of the season we'd rather be 4-12 than 7-9. During the season I don't even think about the draft. Let the chips fall where they may and we'll figure it out in April. I can see your point about the Ryan Leaf reference, but from all indications, Luck could very well be on the Peyton Manning level. The draft is a crapshoot no matter what number you pick at. You're always taking chances on players. I think no matter what our record is, I hope the FO at least considers doing what it takes "within reason" to get Luck. But I won't root for us to lose every game. This isn't the NBA (cough, cough, Minnesota, Cleveland).

[NLC1054]

As I have not seen you define win now in your time here, would you care to share your definition of what it means to have a win now strategy?

I think "win-now" more or less defines the mentality we had until Mike came in, and even when Mike came in, he made his "win now" move by going after McNabb. Now, for the most part, I think the move to get McNabb was motivated by the fact that Jake Locker went back to school and we couldn't move up to draft Sam Bradford. I think if there was any way we could drafted one of those guys in 2010 then this whole McNabb thing would've been avoided. Again, only my opinion, just my thoughts on what motivated trading for McNabb, I could be wrong.

Mike thought he had a better football team than he actually did and his bid to make one run towards the playoffs bit him in the butt, and now I think the approach has changed.

I think when you're trying to "win now", you did what the Jets did last year; trade away draft picks, trade for players, build the best possible football team you can for the moment and push hard to make a run, and deal with the consequences of your actions (i.e. having a bunch of free agents to sign and not a whole lot of money to go around) later.

We tried doing that for years without having a solid foundation of players, signing one big name after another to big, poorly written, poorly conceived contracts that overpaid and overcompensated people who were either passed their prime or looking for a paycheck, at the expense of other talented players who actually deserved a shot, dumping money and the few draft picks we had into one part of the team (the defense) while ignorning the other part of the football team to an almost laughable point (the offense). I think winning now means you sign free agents to big contracts to fill holes that you don't need filled. (I.E signing Adam Archuleta when we already had Ryan Clark on the football team), while allowing other holes to grow ever larger until the threaten to consume the team and become a liability (like the offensive line).

I don't think signing anyone who is thirty years old to a contract is a win now move, particularly if that deal is fair, doesn't tie up too much money in cap space, and it fills a hole that can not be filled by either a player currently on the football team, or by a young player via the draft. (I.E., I don't think signing Atogwe was a win now move.)

I believe in balance and in competition. I think you have to exhaust every means and try to fill the holes on your football teams by either using players you currently have and the NFL Draft. But you can't fill every hole you have just via those means, so I have no issue signing a few, key free agents at positions of need that can not be filled via any other means. And if you do sign a free agent, I think you should do your best to foster competition for the back-up position as possible, and rotate the younger players in and out of the game to get the valuable playing time, either to spell a veteran, or to play alongside a veteran.

I think there is a way you can build primarily through the draft and through your practice squad, without being so scared to pick up a free agent because we've been burnt before. And whether you love it or hate it, no coach is ever going to accept losing, and the goal of every offseason is to get better and win football games. All coaches, in essense, are in "win-now" mode. Just "win now" has a negative connotation because it's been a long time since we had actual football minds running the football team, instead of some jerkoff who plays general manager like it's a game of Madden.

[MLSKINS]

Alot of us won't be openly rooting to lose games, rather we are saying that at the end of the season we'd rather be 4-12 than 7-9. During the season I don't even think about the draft. Let the chips fall where they may and we'll figure it out in April. I can see your point about the Ryan Leaf reference, but from all indications, Luck could very well be on the Peyton Manning level. The draft is a crapshoot no matter what number you pick at. You're always taking chances on players. I think no matter what our record is, I hope the FO at least considers doing what it takes "within reason" to get Luck. But I won't root for us to lose every game. This isn't the NBA (cough, cough, Minnesota, Cleveland).
Who is to say that Luck will pan out? Nobody knows. That is why you just play to win the games and worry about the off-season in the off-season.

[pjfootballer]

Who is to say that Luck will pan out? Nobody knows. That is why you just play to win the games and worry about the off-season in the off-season.

Wasn't that what I kind of said in my post?

[MLSKINS]

Wasn't that what I kind of said in my post?
Yeah. But you keep on talking about this dude like he is sure fire can't miss. Can we at least wait in see what he does with out Harborough at Stanford.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Alot of us won't be openly rooting to lose games, rather we are saying that at the end of the season we'd rather be 4-12 than 7-9. During the season I don't even think about the draft. Let the chips fall where they may and we'll figure it out in April. I can see your point about the Ryan Leaf reference, but from all indications, Luck could very well be on the Peyton Manning level. The draft is a crapshoot no matter what number you pick at. You're always taking chances on players. I think no matter what our record is, I hope the FO at least considers doing what it takes "within reason" to get Luck. But I won't root for us to lose every game. This isn't the NBA (cough, cough, Minnesota, Cleveland).

Agreed completely. Especially the NBA reference. In basketball with only 5 players on the court, one or two key pieces CAN put you immediately in contention. Not to start a whole new debate, but in football, it's much more about a head coach that has a successful scheme, can outcoach his opponents and continually find players who can successfully execute that scheme rather than getting one single piece, even if it's as criticial a piece as a QB.

Maybe I'm a homer through and through, but I have enough confidence that Shanahan can build and find the next Jake Plummer/Matt Schaub and win with him regardless of draft position rather than ever having to worry about needing to lose games to grab that a specific player in the upper tiers of the draft. Rather, just keep finding young talented players who will execute the scheme and groom them...success is coming kids, believe that.

[The Tris]

I think when you're trying to "win now", you did what the Jets did last year; trade away draft picks, trade for players, build the best possible football team you can for the moment and push hard to make a run, and deal with the consequences of your actions (i.e. having a bunch of free agents to sign and not a whole lot of money to go around) later.

Like, what we did last year?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I want to see all the young guys we believe are good enough to make up the core of the roster in the coming years given serious playing time, rooks included, to advance their experience and development as pro's. In an ideal scenario, we'd do that, and they'd give their all in every game but, particularly with no competent pro QB to speak of, would come up short 9 times out of 10 results wise and we'd be in the Luck/ Jones stakes in 2012. Which wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

Another season like last season, or a slight improvement to say 7/8 wins would be the worst thing that could happen IMHO. Again we'd miss out on a potential franchise QB, and again we'd fall into the same old scenario of "we're just one or two big names away."

Hail.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Like, what we did last year?

Now come on, that's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it Tris? Outside of the Donovan deal, what deals do you think we're truly "mortgaging the farm" to win last year? Jammal maybe? I think the FO did a hell of a job last year fielding the most competitive team they could while injecting the best youth movement we've had in years.

[The Tris]

Now come on, that's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it Tris? Outside of the Donovan deal, what deals do you think we're truly "mortgaging the farm" to win last year? Jammal maybe? I think the FO did a hell of a job last year fielding the most competitive team they could while injecting the best youth movement we've had in years.

Hey, I'm just going off his definition, word for word:

"trade away draft picks" CHECK
"trade for players" CHECK
"build the best possible football team you can for the moment" CHECK
"push hard to make a run" CHECK
"deal with the consequences of your actions later" CHECK

[LetThePointsSoar]

Hey, I'm just going off his definition, word for word:

"trade away draft picks" CHECK
"trade for players" CHECK
"build the best possible football team you can for the moment" CHECK
"push hard to make a run" CHECK
"deal with the consequences of your actions later" CHECK

I can sort of see your point, but here's mine.

I don't have the time nor the patience to do the research, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find even 50% of the teams in the NFL who didn't "trade away a draft pick" or "trade for players" last year. And I PRAY every year we're "building the best possible team we can for the moment" and "pushing hard to make a run".

It's the extremity of which we did it in the past, and always being on the wrong end of deals that put this franchise in the awful state it was, not the actual act of making deals.

Just my $.02.

[The Tris]

And I PRAY every year we're "building the best possible team we can for the moment" and "pushing hard to make a run".

So you think we should be pushing hard for a playoff run every year, no matter the roster?

[LetThePointsSoar]

So you think we should be pushing hard for a playoff run every year, no matter the roster?

As long as they are moves that don't severely limit and handicap progress in the short and long term, absolutely. And YES, I think that would include this year. I totally get that I value the talent on the current roster a lot higher than most, but I think this team is going to overwhelmingly surprise a lot of people this year.

[Burgold]

As long as they are moves that don't severely limit and handicap progress in the short and long term, absolutely. And YES, I think that would include this year. I totally get that I value the talent on the current roster a lot higher than most, but I think this team is going to overwhelmingly surprise a lot of people this year.

Heck, 4-12 or repeating 6-10 would surprise a lot of people... sadly, many of them are Redskin fans.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Heck, 4-12 or repeating 6-10 would surprise a lot of people... sadly, many of them are Redskin fans.

And it would disappoint a good few too ..... and not down to the fact that we 'only' won 4/6 games.

Hail.

[PortisBetts]

You play to win the game! give me wins! I always want to win! What Redskins fan isnt sick of losing? When the season rolls around, every loss is heartbreaking and every win is the greatest thing in the world. It sets the tone for my week. You can always build off of winning. Losing doenst help except for draft picks and i am sick of winning draft position.

[tdigle]

Here's what I want:

A 7-9 or 8-8 season this year.
A wild card berth in 2012
A divisional win in 2013
First seeded NFC team in 2014

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

You play to win the game! give me wins! I always want to win! What Redskins fan isnt sick of losing? When the season rolls around, every loss is heartbreaking and every win is the greatest thing in the world. It sets the tone for my week. You can always build off of winning. Losing doenst help except for draft picks and i am sick of winning draft position.


Here's what I want:

A 7-9 or 8-8 season this year.
A wild card berth in 2012
A divisional win in 2013
First seeded NFC team in 2014

In an ideal World, brilliant. Progress like that would be great. But how do we get to that point without the QB, which we miss out on a chance of yet again if we win this season?

Hail.

[tdigle]

In an ideal World, brilliant. Progress like that would be great. But how do we get to that point without the QB, which we miss out on a chance of yet again if we win this season?

Hail.

We don't need to tank this season in order to get a good QB in next year's draft. I've already covered this in the probabilistic thinking thread I made.

[LetThePointsSoar]

In an ideal World, brilliant. Progress like that would be great. But how do we get to that point without the QB, which we miss out on a chance of yet again if we win this season?

Hail.

By this method below...


...but I have enough confidence that Shanahan can build and find the next Jake Plummer/Matt Schaub and win with him regardless of draft position rather than ever having to worry about needing to lose games to grab that a specific player in the upper tiers of the draft. Rather, just keep finding young talented players who will execute the scheme and groom them...success is coming kids, believe that.

[The Tris]

How many playoff games have Jake Plummer/Matt Schaub won exactly?

[clietas]

8fy8t3HYZp4

[pjfootballer]

Agreed completely. Especially the NBA reference. In basketball with only 5 players on the court, one or two key pieces CAN put you immediately in contention. Not to start a whole new debate, but in football, it's much more about a head coach that has a successful scheme, can outcoach his opponents and continually find players who can successfully execute that scheme rather than getting one single piece, even if it's as criticial a piece as a QB.

Maybe I'm a homer through and through, but I have enough confidence that Shanahan can build and find the next Jake Plummer/Matt Schaub and win with him regardless of draft position rather than ever having to worry about needing to lose games to grab that a specific player in the upper tiers of the draft. Rather, just keep finding young talented players who will execute the scheme and groom them...success is coming kids, believe that.

I'm just tired of looking for a QB. I want my Peyton Manning. Tired of projects, tired of retreads, tired of "Mike will find one." I want a bonafide 10-15 year Peyton Manning. I'm tired of the Campbells, Ramseys, Shulers, Frerrottes and other crappy late 1st or other round QBs. I'm tired of the Freizs, Brad Johnsons, Georges, Banks and McNabbs. I'm tired of the potentials like Becks and Brennens. I'd love to just once in my life as a fan to draft a franchise QB. I've never seen one in DC that was drafted, played and led the team for 10+ years like a Farve, Marino, Brady, Aikman etc.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Sustained success with journey men like Plummer are one off's. Don't get me wrong, if he can find somebody a team doesn't want out there (And heck, who knows what Beck may do to that end) brilliant. I just don't see the type of top echelon QB you need to consistently win in today's NFL being one any team would let go.

Hail.

[LetThePointsSoar]

How many playoff games have Jake Plummer/Matt Schaub won exactly?

I get where you're going, but that's not the point. Do you honestly think any of the 3 QB's that everybody seems to be drooling over in this draft are going to be any better than either of those two? Because I certainly see nothing that is rock solid proof that they will be. If we can land a Matt Schaub and not worry about having to "go 4-12 or 6-10" to get there, then I'm all for it. The QB position development just as much about the teachers as it is about the raw talent, and we have two of THE best QB teachers in the game today on staff.

Hail.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

We don't need to tank this season in order to get a good QB in next year's draft. I've already covered this in the probabilistic thinking thread I made.

Of course that's all relative as to whether you think teams would pass on, for me, the limitless potential of Luck or Jones. I don't happen to think many would, regardless of need. Throw in Barkley and that's three off the bat that probably won't escape the top ten or higher.

Hail.

[NLC1054]

How many playoff games have Jake Plummer/Matt Schaub won exactly?

Jake Plummer won one.

[The Tris]

I get where you're going, but that's not the point. Do you honestly think any of the 3 QB's that everybody seems to be drooling over in this draft are going to be any better than either of those two?

Since there is zero chance Rex Grossman is a franchise QB, and a very slim chance John Beck is, I think its pretty logical to asssume that ALL 3 of the top rated passers in next year's draft have a high probability of being a franchise passer (even considering that it is far less than a 50/50 chance that any one of them pans out).

None of the odds are in our favor, but if we call it 0% for Rex, 10% for Beck, and 20% for Luck/Barkley/or Jones, give me the 20%.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 05:20 PM ----------


Jake Plummer won one.

And I bow before the dynasty that is Jake Plummer and his one playoff win.

[NLC1054]

The problem is, it's going to take only getting 3 wins to get Andrew Luck. Maybe even less. Because whoever ends up with the first pick in the draft is going to be the team that's going to take Andrew Luck

Even with Beck and Grossman at quarterback, even with a still shaky offensive line, even with young guys playing, even with still adjusting to Haslett's defense, even if drama ensues, this team has enough talent to fart out 6 wins. 6 wins and that's it. No Andrew Luck. Probably no Landry Jones. If Barkley declares, he might be gone too. Because the teams likely to be in the top 5 of the draft are the same teams that didn't address the quarterback position in this year's draft, or addressed it and bungled it big time and need to find a replacement.

At that point, you're talking about potentially trading away the farm to move up and get him. Because say the Panthers go 1-15, but they're tied to Cam and they're not going to draft Andrew Luck. How valuable does that number one spot become for them? Even if we're in the top 10 of the draft, it's going to take a Ricky Williams-esque trade to go up and get what the hype machine will be calling "the best college quarterback prospect since Peyton Manning".

So at that point, we're doing EXACTLY what we've been saying we shouldn't be doing, which is mortgaging the future to get one player. I don't care WHAT player it is, if you're going to say "we can't afford to trade away draft picks and we need to build through the draft and blah blah blah", then it is counter-intuitive to suggest that we give up what would likely be a lot of draft picks in 2011 and a couple draft picks in 2012.

We'd be screwing ourselves. Hell, even if we go 6-10 again, that doesn't guarantee us a top 10 slot again, because our strength of schedule would end up screwing us over.

And there's always the idea that we bomb the season and then draft Luck or Jones and they friggin' blow, and were STILL without a quarterback. Or one of them has a Jake Locker type of season and his stock plummets and then even if we win we can still scoop him up. This is, after all, the stupid draft evaluation process that concluded Alex Smith and Jason Campbell (and I'm a Campbell fan, by the way) were better prospects than Aaron Rodgers.

I'd rather get some positive momentum, have the team get some wins, go into the draft and improve our football team. And maybe we still don't find a quarterback, but I'd rather wait to find the RIGHT quarterback for the team than to draft any quarterback just for the sake of drafting one.

[The Tris]

I have never said tank for Luck. Nor have I every suggested trading the farm for Luck.

I also happen to think there are more than 3 potential franchise QBs in this draft.

However, I do believe that the likelihood of us finding a franchise passer increases the higher we pick in the draft.

So my goal would be to field the best possible team of players that will still be playing at a high level at least 3 years from now. But I don't really care if we win 4 games or 8 games. We aren't going deep in the playoffs so all our moves should be made with an eye on the future. I'd like us to be thinking like a chess game, instead of checkers.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Since there is zero chance Rex Grossman is a franchise QB, and a very slim chance John Beck is, I think its pretty logical to asssume that ALL 3 of the top rated passers in next year's draft have a high probability of being a franchise passer (even considering that it is far less than a 50/50 chance that any one of them pans out).

None of the odds are in our favor, but if we call it 0% for Rex, 10% for Beck, and 20% for Luck/Barkley/or Jones, give me the 20%.



Completely agree. But my point wasn't about Rex & Beck vs. Luck/Barkley/Jones...my point was that I'm fine with whatever QB we pick up regardless of the draft pick, even if we miss out on those 3, we WILL find a franchise QB even if it is later in the draft through the development taught by Mike & Kyle. In your scenario, I think we'll find plenty of 20%'s even if we go 9-7 last year and have to pick later in the draft, and I for one am happy with that. Although God forbid we end up between 7-9 and 9-7, this board will be in full board onslaught ES apocalypse with "we're still wallowing in mediocrity" rants.

[tdigle]

I have never said tank for Luck. Nor have I every suggested trading the farm for Luck.

I also happen to think there are more than 3 potential franchise QBs in this draft.

However, I do believe that the likelihood of us finding a franchise passer increases the higher we pick in the draft.

So my goal would be to field the best possible team of players that will still be playing at a high level at least 3 years from now. But I don't really care if we win 4 games or 8 games. We aren't going deep in the playoffs so all our moves should be made with an eye on the future. I'd like us to be thinking like a chess game, instead of checkers.

In my estimation, we need a top 16 pick next year to land a potential franchise QB. If we get in the top 10, we won't have to worry about trading picks to move up to land one. Whatever the case, it's very manageable for us.

[squatch66]

i voted i want to see progress.

i dont care if we really do go 1-15 next year as long as it is with beck, helu, hank, paul, kerrigan, jenkins, riley, barnes and the rest of the young guys having major roles on the field. now having said that i hope it is 15 losses by like 3 points because then that means that we are close to being a very dangerous team.

and yes having our pick of any of the top qb prospects is a pretty nice consolation prize :D

[MLSKINS]

I'm just tired of looking for a QB. I want my Peyton Manning. Tired of projects, tired of retreads, tired of "Mike will find one." I want a bonafide 10-15 year Peyton Manning. I'm tired of the Campbells, Ramseys, Shulers, Frerrottes and other crappy late 1st or other round QBs. I'm tired of the Freizs, Brad Johnsons, Georges, Banks and McNabbs. I'm tired of the potentials like Becks and Brennens. I'd love to just once in my life as a fan to draft a franchise QB. I've never seen one in DC that was drafted, played and led the team for 10+ years like a Farve, Marino, Brady, Aikman etc.
:ols: You think you have it bad. I have experienced what you have experienced without the memories of past Super Bowl victories. :(

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 10:59 PM ----------

I just thought of something and I refuse to start another Beck thread. What if Beck tears it up this year? 3700+ Yards, 20+ TD etc. Do we still look into drafting a QB in next years draft or do we draft to build around Beck?

[squatch66]

:ols: You think you have it bad. I have experienced what you have experienced without the memories of past Super Bowl victories. :(

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 10:59 PM ----------

I just thought of something and I refuse to start another Beck thread. What if Beck tears it up this year? 3700+ Yards, 20+ TD etc. Do we still look into drafting a QB in next years draft or do we draft to build around Beck?

i dont really consider those tearing it up numbers but even in the event that beck did something like that i think that shanny looks for a young guy that he can build the team around. at least we would know then that we have a more than capable qb to hold down the fort while our future is groomed and a more than capable backup if needed.

[The Tris]

Shanahan has rarely been one to rest on his laurels at QB.

But that is an interesting hypothetical - at what level performance does Beck (or Rex) have to play at to get us to pass on QB in the 1st next year?

[MLSKINS]

i dont really consider those tearing it up numbers but even in the event that beck did something like that i think that shanny looks for a young guy that he can build the team around. at least we would know then that we have a more than capable qb to hold down the fort while our future is groomed and a more than capable backup if needed.

I would have said 4000 and 25, but even in my mind I couldn't see that happening. :ols:


Shanahan has rarely been one to rest on his laurels at QB.

But that is an interesting hypothetical - at what level performance does Beck (or Rex) have to play at to get us to pass on QB in the 1st next year?
Now that I think about it, the only way he would pass on a QB next year is if we make the playoffs. I don't think there is a number you can put on it.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 11:30 PM ----------


Is this Snoop Dogg's version of puffpuffpasstuesdays? Beck or Grossman throwing for those numbers behind our OL and throwing to our young WRs? We'll get our franchise QB in next year's draft with our top 10 pick. Not to mention that both will be 30+ in 2012.
Here we go with that 30 number again. If a 30 year old is putting up huge numbers, you keep them

[TonePatron]

I don't know why anyone would "hope" for us to be bad. You may expect us too but never hope for it SMD

[carverkid]

Here we go with that 30 number again. If a 30 year old is putting up huge numbers, you keep them

No one is saying you send a 32 year old QB performing at a high level to the glue factory. But you DO bring someone in with the potential to take over within a year or two and become "the guy" for 6-10 years thereafter.

That's what they tried to do with Jason Campbell, but it didn't work out. We just have to hope they pick the right guy, and keep working on the OL.

[B55Green]

Just want some progress to be done. If they feel that one of the QB's in this years upcoming draft is 100% necessary and needed, then they can trade up for him.

[Redskins4ever]

Much progress was made last season. The 2010 Redskins were much better than the 2009 version. Now, it's all about trying to attain the right players to fit what the coaches want. Although the Redskins were 6-10 last season, they were much more competitive than they were under Zorn. As long as Bruce and Mike continue to build the team, there will be more and more progress.

[HailGreen28]

If we were guaranteed NOT to go to a SB, I'd be ok with a lousy record, Well, I wouldn't be OK, but if we were playing young guys in full rebuild mode, it would be good in the longterm.

But anything can happen. Nobody saw the Pats dynasty coming the year before they won their first superbowl. Same with the Warner-led Rams. So ultimately who knows about us this year. Win, baby, win. (just stop mortaging the future)

[Chump Bailey]

Shanahan has rarely been one to rest on his laurels at QB.

But that is an interesting hypothetical - at what level performance does Beck (or Rex) have to play at to get us to pass on QB in the 1st next year?

I don't think it matters personally. No matter how well Rex or John may do, I fully expect us to target a QB in the 1st round of the 2012 draft.

[L7Panda]

You should always want to see your team in the post-season because once there you never quite know how the chips will fall. Live for now, not for five years from now.

[hail2skins]

You should always want to see your team in the post-season because once there you never quite know how the chips will fall. Live for now, not for five years from now.

True Panda, and I don't think anyone would sneeze at a season where the team does well or makes the SB. But at the same time, I don't want the Skins to be "that team" that goes from bottom feeders to a SB appearance, but then goes back into the tank the following season.

I think the Jets are an example of a team that many viewed as somewhat fluky in 2009, getting to the playoffs on account of Indy rolling over, etc., and were looking for Rex to take a nosedive in 2010. But instead they followed it up with a solid 2010.

Getting the Skins to the level of where, say, the Pats are would be sweet. However, we've been so shaky for so long that right now I'd take a few 10-6 seasons in a row. Shanahan did this in his post-Elway stint in Denver, and I can't say I'd be unhappy with that.......although a bit more playoff success than he had post-Elway would be nice. :)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Here we go with that 30 number again. If a 30 year old is putting up huge numbers, you keep them

Especially at the QB position. A pocket QB like Beck could play effectively into his late-30s. Put it this way, odds are it won't be Beck's age that limit him. If lightning strikes and he's the answer at QB, we're set for 6 years or so and could plan for his replacement in 3-4 years.

[carverkid]

Especially at the QB position. A pocket QB like Beck could play effectively into his late-30s. Put it this way, odds are it won't be Beck's age that limit him. If lightning strikes and he's the answer at QB, we're set for 6 years or so and could plan for his replacement in 3-4 years.

Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value.

[thebluefood]

Just want to see progress - and I'm of the mindset that doesn't care about the 2011 draft - just focus on the team we have, continue the youth movement, and build the core we're putting together. I think we're good enough to fall anywhere from 7-9 to 10-6 this season, and am really looking forward to it.

This is pretty much where I am. I've accepted the fact that it's going to be a long, long time before the Redskins are able to compete consistently. All I want right now is progress; not just in the W-L column, but in actual play. I want to watch a game, point to an aspect of our team and say "hey, that looks much better than last year," even if it's during a loss.

The Redskins are a damaged team and it's going to take awhile to recover from the damage. We can do it, though, so long as we stay patient and keep progressing little by little.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value.

I'm fine with that. I would agree that one good year wouldn't be enough to convince me that we're set for several years.

[The Tris]

Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value.

I don't think there is anything Beck or Grossman can imaginably do to prevent us from seeking additional options at QB.

I also don't think its out of the realm of possibilities that we are looking to sign/trade for a potential 2011 starter.


EDIT: Which I think is effing insane, but hey, when has trading for an over-the-hill veteran never worked out?

[MLSKINS]

Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value.
I can't argue with this. I think this is the ideal situation.

[Riggo#44]

Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value.

Think Jon Kitna. In 2003, Kitna had a very good year. 2004 they turned it over to Carson Palmer with Kitna filling in a few games...

That would be the idea situation...

[LetThePointsSoar]

I also don't think its out of the realm of possibilities that we are looking to sign/trade for a potential 2011 starter.

Agreed. Surprised a bit that there haven't been more rumors about it given the typical Redskins are linked to XXXX wide receiver media. Not sure it will happen, but it's definitely something that could happen that most aren't really talking about this offseason.

[pjfootballer]

At that point, you're talking about potentially trading away the farm to move up and get him. Because say the Panthers go 1-15, but they're tied to Cam and they're not going to draft Andrew Luck. How valuable does that number one spot become for them? Even if we're in the top 10 of the draft, it's going to take a Ricky Williams-esque trade to go up and get what the hype machine will be calling "the best college quarterback prospect since Peyton Manning".

So at that point, we're doing EXACTLY what we've been saying we shouldn't be doing, which is mortgaging the future to get one player. I don't care WHAT player it is, if you're going to say "we can't afford to trade away draft picks and we need to build through the draft and blah blah blah", then it is counter-intuitive to suggest that we give up what would likely be a lot of draft picks in 2011 and a couple draft picks in 2012.

I'd rather get some positive momentum, have the team get some wins, go into the draft and improve our football team. And maybe we still don't find a quarterback, but I'd rather wait to find the RIGHT quarterback for the team than to draft any quarterback just for the sake of drafting one.

You don't have to have a Mike Ditka brain fart type of move to move into the #1 position in the draft. True we would have to give up picks for Luck, but probably a 1 this year and next year and maybe another pick. We have 8 picks (two 4ths) going into the 2012 draft. We have "some" leverage to move up if we want to. Now, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. I'm not saying we should give up a ton of picks to move up to #1, but if the right deal fits, I'd be all for it. In other words, it would have to make sense.

Remember, this isn't Vinny giving away the farm. Bruce/Mike turned our 1st round pick this past year into 6 more picks and we still got our man at #16. We had no 2nd or 3rd going into last year's draft.

[carverkid]

Is there any player (or combination of players) on our roster today that another team would trade us their 2012 First Round pick for?

[The Tris]

Is there any player (or combination of players) on our roster today that another team would trade us their 2012 First Round pick for?

Orakpo

[Chump Bailey]

Orakpo

You don't think we could get a mid-rounder thrown into the pot in addition for a guy like Rak or perhaps even Landry? It seems they would be worth a bit more since they're both a known commodity and play premier positions. Not for doing any such thing for the record.

[carverkid]

Orakpo

Woah, easy there! I meant players we might actually consider trading :-) Definitely not worth losing rak.

[The Tris]

Just answering the question.

No I don't really want to trade him, yes it would be incredibly dumb.

I think Landry would be stupid to trade as he is more valuable to us than to another team.

Trent is too raw right now.

Everyone else is too old or too expensive.

The play would have been to trade a bunch of lesser assets two years ago, get extra picks for this past year, and then we could have bundled them for 2012 picks.

[bigricky3469]

I'm pretty sure to 95% that we will suck this year. I just hope when it's time to sign free agents that we only stick to our one major need and that's acquiring OL help. I want to us to play and develop our young guys.

[Bacon]

Hey, we tore up a strike-shortened season once. Lockout = lock it up.

[Bibby]

If we have a season like the Buccaneers had last year than I'd be ecstatic with all our young guys doing some serious contribution and pulling out wins. A season with winning and losing and seeing a true direction that this team will get good with the young talent we have is what I hope for. Kind of like what we have with the Capitals & Nationals.

[Riggo#44]

Hey, we tore up a strike-shortened season once. Lockout = lock it up.

Twice :)

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 08:35 AM ----------


Is there any player (or combination of players) on our roster today that another team would trade us their 2012 First Round pick for?

Alber Hayesworth! Al Davis...I'm looking in your direction. Oh wait, nevermind. We're not the Patriots...