About this whole "stability" thing ...

[Om]

It’s become an NFL cliche that the Redskins are the poster-child for how NOT to put together a roster. It was born out of the 2000 FA acquisitions of Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders, Mark Carrier, et al, and fueled by the awkward departures of guys like Laveranues Coles, Antonio Pierce and Lavar Arrington. Fans and media alike have tended to view those big-name moves as defining of the team’s entire philosophy.

Yesterday, the Post’s Tom Boswell wrote this piece, wherein he took the kind of standard shots--“Sanity and stability: What a concept.”--that we’ve seen so much of the last few years. Natrually, there was a thread about it here shortly after, mostly full of disgruntled fans echoing his mantra. Which got me to thinking ... and asking this question:

I'm curious ...

On the one hand, you've got Boswell (who falls into the same trap many fans do by failing to distinguish between the pre- and post-Gibbs Snyder years), whose entire piece is based on the premise that the Redskins are losers because they have no continuity, and turnover far too many players to compete in today's NFL.

On the other hand, you've got Gibbs, repeatedly saying the Redskins have been among the best in the league in terms of retaining their own players since his return.

So which is it?

Has anyone run across any resources that track FA comings and goings across the NFL from year to year?

It’s a question I’ve asked before and never had anyone venture and answer for. I wasn’t surprised to see that it effectively ended that thread when I asked it again. I’d like to throw the question out there again and shine a big ES light on it. Hopefully to start an actual look at some hard numbers and actual circumstances surrounding them, as opposed to just another “WE NEED A GM!!” riot.

I would really like to see a serious objective look at this ... seems to me it would be a fascinating study for anyone truly interested in an objective look at how the Redskins are put together versus other teams. Not in a vacuum, as we tend to do most of the time, but with an honest comparative eye.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as just looking at the total number of current starters actually drafted by each team, as depth is a factor too. You’d have to look at an entire roster. And you’d have to be prepared to take into account things like career-ending or threatening injuries that force moves, and changes in coaching staffs of course, to make it meaningful. Gibbs’ Redskins are the perfect example of the latter--2004 was his first year in, taking over a team coming off back to back awful seasons and over a decade of instability caused by many factors. So no, it won’t be easy. But maybe we can start the ball rolling and use some part of the next few days/weeks talking about something besides what we’re doing with the 6th pick.

Bottom line, it would be interesting indeed to find out if the common perception of the Redskins as the NFL’s worst front office in terms of building and keeping a team together holds up over Joe Gibbs first three years. What if it turns out there are a dozen teams out there, maybe even some playoff-type teams, that have had just as much if not more turnover than we have over the past few seasons? Would that impact the way we and others view what they’re doing right now? Would it affect anyone's perceptions?

Hell, if nothing else, it might be cool to have something factual at our disposal next time someone comes trolling in from another board laughing at the Skins for trying to “buy a championship.” Or maybe even to email to a guy like Boswell and ask him for his take.

And yes, for the record, if it were to turn out we ARE the worst in the league at “keeping a roster together” by some objective standard, I’ll be the first to concede the point. I would just really like to reconcile the cliche with what Coach Gibbs has said on several occasions. Somewhere, there's a disconnect.

[Cdowwe]

Good stuff Om, thanks

[rictus58]

I don't think it's the amount of turnover that has doomed the Redskins. I think they loose the same amount of players as any other team. It's also not them trying to build through FA. It's the type of turnover they have been having. It's the careless use of draft picks. It's bringing in names because they are names, Not because they fit the system.

[nightbird]

That sounds like a serious project. You'd have to look at all 31 other teams and see how much their rosters change each year, how many of their draft picks not only make the team but also contribute in a way that is commensurate or exceeds their draft status.

For instance, Rod Gardner makes us look bad, because we let him go after a few years for i think a 6th round pick. But he only makes us look bad because we took him in the middle of the 1st round. If he had been a later draft pick and put up the numbers he did (which were respectable), then we traded him, he'd make us look good.

And how do you judge a Robert Royal? Is that a plus for us, because we found him on draft day two and he was a solid contributor for us, then we let him go when he wanted his second payday? That's what the Patriots do, right? Or is that a minus, because we were stupid to let him go so we could get Fauria?

And what if you loaded up with draft picks, sign them and resign them, but you draft badly and have losing seasons over and over again. You kept your team together, but what's the point of keeping a crappy team intact?

I just think it's tough to quantify all this.

Maybe someone could break it down positionally.

For all three seasons of Gibbs II, we've had (injuries aside) the same 4/5ths of our offensive line, 3/4ths of our defensive line, and virtually the same group of running backs.

There has been major turnover, however, at quarterback, wide receiver, linebacker and in the secondary.

Maybe that's the key?

[Om]

Originally Posted by rictus58

I don't think it's the amount of turnover that has doomed the Redskins. I think they loose the same amount of players as any other team. It's also not them trying to build through FA. It's the type of turnover they have been having. It's the careless use of draft picks. It's bringing in names because they are names, Not because they fit the system.

See, this illustrates my point perfectly. Due respect brother, but those are pure cliches. "Careless" use of draft picks isn't objective, it's 100% subjective. And the part about bringing in players "because they are names" is the kind of cliched, purely argumentative stuff that tends to distract fans from having meaningful discussions about this stuff.

[thespaniard]

I think building through Free Agency as opposed to the draft inherently breeds instability. When you sign a player to a long term deal in FA, it is usually for big money (if the player is any good), so the player is less likely to see the end of that contract, and will probably get cut at some point unless he agrees to restructure.

In contrast, a draft pick will sign for about the same number of years (depending on what round he was drafted in) as a free agent of equal capability (or projected capability w.r.t. a draft pick), but have a much lower cap number, making him more likely to see the end of his contract. Also, the drafted player is younger, so the team is likely to be more patient with the player as he progresses. The team is also more likely to extend a younger drafted player before a player signed in FA, because a lot of times extending a free agency acquired player will mean extending them into their 30s, and a lot of teams are wary of that.

Seeing as the Redskins are one of the worst teams in recent history at building through the draft, I would have to think that their FA retention rate would be among the NFL's lowest. However, it would be interesting to see some quantifiable data on the subject.

[Chachie]

There are plenty of teams that haven't had "success" in the last 10 years. I wish we weren't one of them but I don't think we deserve the stigma of a "mismanaged" team. Daniel Snyder has done what he could to bring in top-tier players.
There are teams who have done a lot better than us by working through the draft, and there are teams who have done worse.

[Om]

nightbird, nice post. Absolutely it's a big project. I don't expect anyone to tacke it alone obviously. I would love to at least get a meaningful conversation going about it though. Maybe encourage a few people to pick a team or two and at least take a cursory look at who is on their roster and what kind of turnover they've had over the past 3 or so years. And maybe someone out there actually has seen the kind of study I referred to in the initial post and could point us in that direction.

Originally Posted by thespaniard

Seeing as the Redskins are one of the worst teams in recent history at building through the draft, I would have to think that their FA retention rate would be among the NFL's lowest. However, it would be interesting to see some quantifiable data on the subject.

Uh oh. Cliche alert.

[#98QBKiller]

Originally Posted by Om

And the part about bringing in players "because they are names" is the kind of cliched, purely argumentative stuff that tends to distract fans from having meaningful discussions about this stuff.

I disagree with this point. Looking back on the last 15 years or so, it seems we haven't totally evaluated whether or not each FA trophy player will fit in our system. It always seems like we charge straight for the most popular (and most expensive) thing on the market only to be disappointed most of the time. This is why it was so refreshing for me to see us not go after Nate Clements this year.

[thespaniard]

Originally Posted by nightbird

That sounds like a serious project. You'd have to look at all 31 other teams and see how much their rosters change each year, how many of their draft picks not only make the team but also contribute in a way that is commensurate or exceeds their draft status.

For instance, Rod Gardner makes us look bad, because we let him go after a few years for i think a 6th round pick. But he only makes us look bad because we took him in the middle of the 1st round. If he had been a later draft pick and put up the numbers he did (which were respectable), then we traded him, he'd make us look good.

And how do you judge a Robert Royal? Is that a plus for us, because we found him on draft day two and he was a solid contributor for us, then we let him go when he wanted his second payday? That's what the Patriots do, right? Or is that a minus, because we were stupid to let him go so we could get Fauria?

And what if you loaded up with draft picks, sign them and resign them, but you draft badly and have losing seasons over and over again. You kept your team together, but what's the point of keeping a crappy team intact?

I just think it's tough to quantify all this.

Maybe someone could break it down positionally.

For all three seasons of Gibbs II, we've had (injuries aside) the same 4/5ths of our offensive line, 3/4ths of our defensive line, and virtually the same group of running backs.

There has been major turnover, however, at quarterback, wide receiver, linebacker and in the secondary.

Maybe that's the key?

Very interesting point. Bad teams are more likely to have a high turnover, since the players they have right now obviously aren't getting the job done. As for the Skins specifically, they seem to turn over about 3-4 starters a year. Some teams only turn over 1-2 a year (see this years Saints, who returned 22, and Carolina, who returns 21), while other times half a roster can be changed (see last years Saints, turned over 27 of 53 spots). But that is not always a bad thing. Perhaps stability is only good if a team is successful?

[rictus58]

Originally Posted by Om

See, this illustrates my point perfectly. Due respect brother, but those are pure cliches. "Careless" use of draft picks isn't objective, it's 100% subjective. And the part about bringing in players "because they are names" is the kind of cliched, purely argumentative stuff that tends to distract fans from having meaningful discussions about this stuff.

Om,
Pretty much everyone in the league knew Arch couldn't play cover. So what did the Redskins do? They asked him to play cover and he failed miserably at that. Sure, injuries played a role in that, but the teams needs to account for that. The DL is not very good. Did they honestly think Arch wouldn't have to cover somebody when the DL cannot get pressue? They simply did not do their homework when they signed him. Much like they didn't do their homework on Barrow.

I really like the ARE signing, but they over paid for him as well. They like to bring in these big name players and you cannot deny it. It has been the way this team operates the last 10 years.

They now sign Fletcher who will play MLB. Which moves Lemar to outside. So where does Rocky fit into the mix? Why move up to draft him?
Why throw a 2nd round pick at Denver in addition to Bailey? Most sports writers agree that the deal would and could have been done player for player. Why toss two picks to the 49ers for Lloyd?

Just because the argument may be "cliche" doesn't mean it doesn't hold water.

[G-Prime]

Well since Gibbs has returned how many "names" have we lost.. 4? Two of which were disgruntled and 2 of which were looking for the big pay day. Not exactly what I'd call a team letting it's core go. I'm not talking about our backups.

[thespaniard]

Originally Posted by Om

Uh oh. Cliche alert.

I don't mean 'one of the worst teams in building through the draft' in terms of the quality of players they have drafted, but in the quantity. If you have less draft picks, you're gonna have less young players that you want to keep around.

[Om]

Argh.

Maybe it's too late already, and I get partial blame for this but ... can we try to NOT turn this into a rehash of specific Redskins moves we've debated a million times already, and focus instead on the question of whether perception equals reality insofar as the common perception "out there" that the Redskins are the most unstable (read: incompetent) organization in the NFL?

Maybe we could just start with a couple people taking a couple other teams, looking at their roster today and comparing it to, say, three years ago? I've already started with NE in case anyone's wondering. Big job, yes. Interesting though.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That would be an interesting project to tackle

A few things on it

A) Time period. You can look at the Redskins from 2004-2006. 3/5 of the oline is the same, you have a drafted starting QB, drafted starting TE, same tailback from 2004, and drafted depth guys like Ladell Betts and Rock Cartright

B) You throw coaching changes into the mix

C) You account for losses (Pierce, Smoot, Clark) but how do you account for Fred Smoot

D) As you stated, injuries (Davie Fiore, Brandon Noble) retirements (Ray Brown) and ineffective play (Gardner, Ramsey, Raymer)

E) Actual draft picks still with the team

These are parameters I can think of off the top of my head

Contrary to popular belieft, there has been a lot of stability. Just having the same coaching staff in place for 4 years has to help.